|
We understand that this topic evokes strong feelings. In the interest of maintaining a necessary and productive discussion, we will be taking a strong stance against posters that clearly do not contribute to this aim. Dishonest and bad faith arguments, victim blaming, and attacks on other users, will be strictly moderated. A post which only serves to muddy the waters and dishonestly portray the nature of assault and harassment (and corresponding accusations) is also unwelcome. |
On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl."
(A tribunal is a court of law, and mcgormack is essentially replacing "believing Melanie's story" with "it wouldn't hold up in the legal system as a criminal charge". He's insisting for an unreasonably high burden of proof, when in reality the discussion in this thread has been about whether or not we are willing to listen to victims and whether or not we should excommunicate Rapid and other abusers, rather than attempt to formally press charges.)
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum. We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does. If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant. But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly?
You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here.
|
Mods - He said this is a smurf account and that he has a main one. Can you at least require him to post this as himself? Pretty sure only a few older elite are allowed to have multiple active accounts. Is he one?
This is serious stuff, why should vets be wearing masks?
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 06:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On June 27 2020 06:23 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:21 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:19 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:02 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:49 JimmiC wrote:
Why not. Nothing illegal in that story, and a normal person doesn't get fired for having an unhealthy intimate relationship. We get it, he's acted creepy many times with strangers, now he's rightfully off the Starcraft scene. His name in Google might be associated with these stories for years, which is worse punishment than a normal person would get for talking about his dick to strangers. And now we need to condemn him for his being an asshole in his private love life too? That's enough with the public trial, man. What's next? A girl he insulted when he was in high school will come out? Maybe he maphacked too in Starcraft once? I mean people 2 days were complaining that 4 people with screenshots was not proof enough of the not unsolicited dick pic. Now that number is 5. This is not unfair to Rapid, in the court of public opinion or law because they often bring evidence of situations that do not rise to the level of criminality to show the pattern of behavior that did. The only way this would be inappropriate is if the Girl didn't want it discussed, but that is not the case. The whole "doth protest too much" comes to mind, because as time goes further the original arguments seem to be forgotten. If she was the first one to come forward you might have a point, she is the at least 5th, to further show the pattern it is completely relevant and helpful to anyone not completely biased. And to be completely honest I wish people were taking this as serious as they would Map hacking, because this is a much bigger problem. Everyone has an ex that can talk shit about her or him, and everyone can talk shit about an ex. When we can into the ex-shit-talking territory, we've often gone too far. (See what happened to Chris Hardwick.) His alleged abusive love life is not relevant to the other events at all. You are just completely wrong, wrong in terms of legality and ethics. And now 70% of your posts are being wrong and defending someone who has basically a mountain of actual evidence against them. It is probably time to reflect on not only this but your life choices in general. He's not Bill Crosby, he's a guy who casted some tournaments of a 20 year old games a few times and sexually harassed some women. Maybe we should slow down on the whole public humiliation treatment before talking about his private love life, where nothing illegal happened. That's all I'm saying. It’s absolutely pertinent to his continued presence in the scene if he indulges in questionable behaviour in his private life. Assuming it is true of course. He works in a still nascent scene that a lot of naive young people want to break into, if he’s sending dick pics around and engaging in behaviour that treads into emotional abuse or grooming then absolutely that is relevant. Especially when networking to get a leg up is rampant in the industry, do you want a guy with that track record exerting that leverage? I don’t actually recall anyone in here calling for Rapid’s head and wanting his life ruined. The general tenor has been if these accusations are true then our scene doesn’t welcome him, but that if he takes it as a learning experience and reflects on his own behaviour there’s plenty else he could be doing. No engineer or doctor would ever be fired because his ex-wife claims that he groomed her, or acted like an asshole. This would not even belong to the public sphere. Rapid's life is more ruined than any normal person would be under the same circumstances. Do you realize how bad it is just to have to stories come up when someone googles your name? That can make anyone unemployable right there. He's acted like a creep, yes. Now there has some be some breaks on our train. Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl."
(A tribunal is a court of law, and mcgormack is essentially replacing "believing Melanie's story" with "it wouldn't hold up in the legal system as a criminal charge". He's insisting for an unreasonably high burden of proof, when in reality the discussion in this thread has been about whether or not we are willing to listen to victims and whether or not we should excommunicate Rapid and other abusers, rather than attempt to formally press charges.)
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum. We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does. If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant. But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What behaviours do you think someone who considers himself or herself a victim should be discussed, and what behaviours do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly?
Which is part of the wider problem. As women feel reticent to come forward in the first place, what tends to happen is behaviour goes unchallenged for ages, one comes forward and then a bunch of similar corroborating stories at a similar time and boom, yeah that can be devastating to a reputation.
Alternatively, as I and others have been advocating in this thread, the conditions should be set that women can come forward and behaviour nipped in the bud.
From what I’m reading, as a disliked of MOBAs and not initiated in that scene at all, the DotA stuff is far more egregious.
Again, assuming these allegations are true with this hypothetical. Rapid did what he did, woman felt uncomfortable. Said to someone above him who disciplined him for it. Maybe Rapid genuinely was just being an idiot as opposed to manipulative, changes his behaviour.
As it’s just one stupid incident, then that’s something to learn and recover from.
The alternative is that this behaviour wasn’t challenged, he did the same thing to numerous women, didn’t self correct and when it comes to light, well it’s a slew of similar offences and a pattern of behaviour.
Keeping this public/private demarcation just helps people hide shitty behaviour. In this crude hypothetical I’ve constructed Rapid engages in harassment, gets admonished and perhaps alters his future behaviour.
Vs the alternative which is what we’re seeing being exposed in these allegations.
A more open environment in this regard is beneficial to men too, some may be blissfully unaware as to how uncomfortable their behaviour is making others, and indeed may be mortified to find that so.
|
On June 27 2020 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl."
(A tribunal is a court of law, and mcgormack is essentially replacing "believing Melanie's story" with "it wouldn't hold up in the legal system as a criminal charge". He's insisting for an unreasonably high burden of proof, when in reality the discussion in this thread has been about whether or not we are willing to listen to victims and whether or not we should excommunicate Rapid and other abusers, rather than attempt to formally press charges.)
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum. We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does. If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant. But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly? You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here.
I'm saying WE, as a community, should give public importance to this story, and WE should not give public importance to this other story.
Anyone can say whatever they want.
|
On June 27 2020 07:36 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl."
(A tribunal is a court of law, and mcgormack is essentially replacing "believing Melanie's story" with "it wouldn't hold up in the legal system as a criminal charge". He's insisting for an unreasonably high burden of proof, when in reality the discussion in this thread has been about whether or not we are willing to listen to victims and whether or not we should excommunicate Rapid and other abusers, rather than attempt to formally press charges.)
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum. We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does. If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant. But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly? You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here. I'm saying WE, as a community, should give public importance to this story, and WE should not give public importance to this other story. Anyone can say whatever they want.
What if I say that WE as a community should should give public importance to both of the stories? You don't get to alone decide what is the important story that WE as a community are allowed to care about.
|
On June 27 2020 07:39 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:36 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl."
(A tribunal is a court of law, and mcgormack is essentially replacing "believing Melanie's story" with "it wouldn't hold up in the legal system as a criminal charge". He's insisting for an unreasonably high burden of proof, when in reality the discussion in this thread has been about whether or not we are willing to listen to victims and whether or not we should excommunicate Rapid and other abusers, rather than attempt to formally press charges.)
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum. We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does. If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant. But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly? You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here. I'm saying WE, as a community, should give public importance to this story, and WE should not give public importance to this other story. Anyone can say whatever they want. What if I say that WE as a community should should give public importance to both of the stories?
Welcome to the last 5 pages of this thread.
|
I have read the entire thread, and admire the patience and goodwill of many of the people posting here. I have read your posts, and i think you have brought up an important issue, with regards to what is harassment and what is the appropriate reaction to different allegations.
I do disagree with you about whether the most recent allegation is relevant or not. Other people have also disagreed, and explained quite well why they think so, and where they start to disagree with you. I'm not asking you to come and say you've been enlightened and denounce all the things you've said, nor is anyone else asking for that, I'd like you to however read the last exchange again and think why I replied to you in the way i did in the last message.
If you can understand why people think that the last case is important that would be nice. I think I can understand why you say it is not, that the actions are in the space where they're not illegal and interactions like that do happen and they don't get brought up in public and people do not have them attached to their names. Can you see why some people here, me included think it is relevant, and while even unfortunate that it has to come to public, it is important that it did? That it was brought to public as a last resort and that if we discourage people from sharing these stories we also inadvertently discourage them from sharing more serious cases. Again, it would be wonderful if they were dealt in private and in the relevant systems, but in cases like this the systems haven't been adequate.
Edit:sausage thumbs hit the enter on my phone
|
On June 27 2020 07:36 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
"With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl."
(A tribunal is a court of law, and mcgormack is essentially replacing "believing Melanie's story" with "it wouldn't hold up in the legal system as a criminal charge". He's insisting for an unreasonably high burden of proof, when in reality the discussion in this thread has been about whether or not we are willing to listen to victims and whether or not we should excommunicate Rapid and other abusers, rather than attempt to formally press charges.)
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum. We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does. If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant. But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly? You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here. I'm saying WE, as a community, should give public importance to this story, and WE should not give public importance to this other story. Anyone can say whatever they want.
Not true, but I think it makes sense for me to part ways with this discussion for the rest of the day. Take care.
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 07:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:41 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:39 Oukka wrote:On June 27 2020 07:36 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 06:47 mcgormack wrote:
[quote]
The question is about what should and shouldn't be brought up on a public forum.
We all have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line where our justice system does.
If Rapid did things that are against the law (and according to all the testimonies, he did), those stories are relevant.
But any story that brings up Rapid being an asshole is maybe too much now. We have enough evidence, judgement passed, session closed. That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced. And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly? You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here. I'm saying WE, as a community, should give public importance to this story, and WE should not give public importance to this other story. Anyone can say whatever they want. What if I say that WE as a community should should give public importance to both of the stories? Welcome to the last 5 pages of this thread. Untrue originally you were arguing nothing was illegal and now instead of admiting you were wrong youve moved the goal posts to whatever this is.
I originally said :
Not sure how to feel about this one.
The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public.
In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum.
This is everything I stood for from the beginning. He never did anything illegal to her, never said otherwise.
|
On June 27 2020 07:31 AttackZerg wrote:
Mods - He said this is a smurf account and that he has a main one. Can you at least require him to post this as himself? Pretty sure only a few older elite are allowed to have multiple active accounts. Is he one?
This is serious stuff, why should vets be wearing masks?
I also think that his arguments in the last several pages are a distinct violation of the mod note at the top, by and large. It being an admitted smurf who's doing the trolling just adds to it.
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 08:06 M3t4PhYzX wrote:
Man, what a mess..
-.-
Not that I say this as an attack on you by any means, but imagine being one of the ones that's been assaulted. This very thread demonstrates quite neatly that when you try to actually come forward with your truth, your experience, people will look for every justification as to why they shouldn't even give you the time of day. "Your story matters, it just shouldn't be public". Like the private relationships that created your problem are going to then fix it.
|
You set the bar of her testimony at "The Justice System".
Depending on the justice system and jurisdictions it is possible that he did infact commit a crime when he sent that first dick picture.
Unless you are Rapid or the person giving testimony, you cannot possibly know that nothing illegal occurred, literally nobody can know that but them. Yet you know it.
Who. Are. You.
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On June 27 2020 07:49 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:46 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 07:41 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:39 Oukka wrote:On June 27 2020 07:36 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:20 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 07:11 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
That's your right to want to draw the line there, so I'd imagine if you created a public forum to discuss certain things, it would make sense to include a set of rules explicitly laying out where you would like that line to be drawn and enforced.
And where do you draw the line? If I had my own community forum? I would try to make the space a place where victims could feel comfortable coming forward with accounts of harassment, and not turn away from the tough, serious discussions that need to be had in order to address systemic issues of abuse and discrimination. But regardless of my hypothetical forum and your hypothetical forum, we're on the TL forum and they already have some rules in place: https://tl.net/forum/articles/17911-tlnet-10-commandments (The word "tribunal" doesn't appear in those TL rules, btw.) I'm not talking about censorship and rules, and I don't know why you bring that up. I don't think anything should be censored. What types of stories do you think of someone who did something wrong should be discussed, and what stories do not deserve to be discussed and debated publicly? You're telling people that story X should be made public but story Y shouldn't be made public, despite them both clearly corroborating against Rapid. I have no problem discussing the full spectrum of stories so that they can be properly explored and assessed and used to inform us all on what is and isn't appropriate, but I'm not interested in speaking further on what I would personally, hypothetically allow. That's irrelevant. This thread is about sexual harassment and abuse in StarCraft, and if you insist on being the arbiter of what's appropriate or not to post, then I can only hope that you get recalled out of here. I'm saying WE, as a community, should give public importance to this story, and WE should not give public importance to this other story. Anyone can say whatever they want. What if I say that WE as a community should should give public importance to both of the stories? Welcome to the last 5 pages of this thread. Untrue originally you were arguing nothing was illegal and now instead of admiting you were wrong youve moved the goal posts to whatever this is. I originally said : Not sure how to feel about this one.
The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public.
In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum.This is everything I stood for from the beginning. He never did anything illegal to her, never said otherwise.
It corroborates the other accusations though.
Apropos of nothing, I would say that perhaps it’s on the borderline of what should be in the public domain.
On the back of these harassment accusations it is merely ‘here are my experiences that are similar with the same individual.’
I don’t understand why this one crosses a particular line.
|
On June 27 2020 07:43 Oukka wrote:
If you can understand why people think that the last case is important that would be nice. I think I can understand why you say it is not, that the actions are in the space where they're not illegal and interactions like that do happen and they don't get brought up in public and people do not have them attached to their names. Can you see why some people here, me included think it is relevant, and while even unfortunate that it has to come to public, it is important that it did? That it was brought to public as a last resort and that if we discourage people from sharing these stories we also inadvertently discourage them from sharing more serious cases. Again, it would be wonderful if they were dealt in private and in the relevant systems, but in cases like this the systems haven't been adequate.
It comes down to what is serious enough to deserve to be discussed.
I believe that MeToo is about sexual harassment and sexual assault, which have very wide definitions.
To some people, the threshold seems to be whenever someone considers himself or herself to be a victim of a behavior, or being wronged. I believe that this threshold is dangerous because it's so low that it unfortunately derails, dilutes and discredits the MeToo movement.
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On June 27 2020 08:20 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:43 Oukka wrote:
If you can understand why people think that the last case is important that would be nice. I think I can understand why you say it is not, that the actions are in the space where they're not illegal and interactions like that do happen and they don't get brought up in public and people do not have them attached to their names. Can you see why some people here, me included think it is relevant, and while even unfortunate that it has to come to public, it is important that it did? That it was brought to public as a last resort and that if we discourage people from sharing these stories we also inadvertently discourage them from sharing more serious cases. Again, it would be wonderful if they were dealt in private and in the relevant systems, but in cases like this the systems haven't been adequate.
It comes down to what is serious enough to deserve to be discussed. To some people, the threshold seems to be whenever someone considers himself or herself to be a victim of a behavior. I believe that this treshold is dangerous because it's so low that it unfortunately derails, dilutes and discredits the MeToo movement.
How does it discredit MeToo at all? It’s not purely a movement about rape and harassment, it raises awareness about psychological forms of abuse as well
|
You are the one that has spent more time speaking about her testimony then anyone else by dozens of posts.
Literally, you have been the one spot lightning her testimony. Single handedly you have spent 5 hours laser beamed on it.
Your the biggest promoter of it.
Who. Are. You.
|
On June 27 2020 05:39 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 05:26 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:14 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 04:58 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:
[quote]
This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.
The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job.
This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past?
You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment. I haven't twisted your words. I have read and responded to them. You said it isn't harassment unless a justice system says so. Some say so. You said unsolicited is not harassment, some places consider it harassment and a crime. You claim things shouldn't be spoken about in public unless the justice system would agree, some justice system do agree. I have not twisted your words. They are you words, viewable to all. To make it very clear - YOU ARE WRONG, unsolicited dick pictures are a crime. You draw the line with the justice system until the moment you find out the justice system doesn't agree with you. Find me a single text of law about sexual harassment with the word ''unsollicited''. Unwelcome is the s. " Indian Penal Code a) For women Section 509 of the IPC deals with words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. As per the section, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, shall be liable for punishment. Acts such as cyber flashing of genitalia, pornography and sexual sounds fall primarily under this section of the law. This is the section which has been previously applied by the police in instances of cyber flashing along with Section 67 of the IT Act. Section 354A(iii) on the other hand provides that a man who shows pornography against the will of a woman, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment and shall be punished. Cyber flashing pertaining specifically to pornography, including pornographic content hidden in videos, links or files appearing to deal with some other subject matter on the surface, or in cases where the sender convinces the receiver to open a file or media, misleading them to believe that it contains something other rather than the pornographic content hidden in it, is most likely to be held liable under this Section of the IPC. Exposing a woman to pornography against her will over video call should also technically fall under the ambit of this section. b) For children In the case of children, Section 293 of the IPC provides punishment for whoever distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any obscene object, or attempts to do so. This section should reasonably apply to cyber flashing of pornography, genitalia and other such obscene objects to children. c) For Men The IPC seems to be lacking any provisions for crimes in which the victim of cyber flashing or sexual harassment may be a man. The Information Technology Act, 2000 Most of the provisions of the IT Act are largely gender-neutral. Thus, the sections mentioned below apply equally in the cases of men, women and children. Section 67 of the Act prescribes punitive action for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. Cyber flashing of genitalia or other similar obscene or repulsive items shall fall under this section. This section has been previously used by the police to book offenders of cyber flashing. Similarly, Section 67A deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. Cyber flashing of pornography shall attract this Section of the IT Act. In the special circumstance where one gets cyber flashed with child pornography, Section 67B, which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form, along with Section 13 read with Section 14 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which pertain to the issue of usage of children for pornographic purposes, shall also apply. " They don't use unsolicited in there laws - they call them cyber flashers. So Rapid would be classified as a cyber flasher under the Indian penal system, section 509 and would also, potentially qualify for another section, whether or not his victims felt they had been duped or tricked into viewing his pictures. The link you provided covers it too. But you aren't worried about what the law says, that was just what you were saying to prove a point, until it didn't work anymore. Source www.barandbench.com Ok so we've got one line in her story where we've established that she would have been sexually harassed by her ex-boyfriend if they had been in India You argued that your viewpoint was based upon this not been a crime and that you side with "the justice system", by your own admission, he committed a crime under at least one justice system, so now you should be glad that this conversation is happening publicly. Right? Or do you still want to sweep this crime of cyber-flashing under the rug? Unless I am mistaken, all of your points have been addressed, isn't this the part where someone who is acting in good faith goes ... "shit, that is a crime, my bad?"
On June 27 2020 08:11 AttackZerg wrote:
You set the bar of her testimony at "The Justice System".
Depending on the justice system and jurisdictions it is possible that he did infact commit a crime when he sent that first dick picture.
Unless you are Rapid or the person giving testimony, you cannot possibly know that nothing illegal occurred, literally nobody can know that but them. Yet you know it.
Who. Are. You.
Ok, he would have committed a crime if he was in India, as you pointed out.
Again, I'd be ok if she only said ''Yeah I've been with Rapid for years, he sent me a dick pic after one week. That's his thing''. It's still very hard to claim it was sexual harassment in this specific case, but it gives even more credibility to the other stories, so that's good.
The rest has no business being debated on a public forum, because nothing illegal was reported. Of course I don't know the details... what kind of logic is this?
On June 27 2020 05:39 AttackZerg wrote:
You are the one that has spent more time speaking about her testimony then anyone else by dozens of posts.
Literally, you have been the one spot lightning her testimony. Single handedly you have spent 5 hours laser beamed on it.
Your the biggest promoter of it.
Who. Are. You.
I'm replying, nothing else.
Not going into the details really, because it's irrelevant.
|
On June 27 2020 08:20 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 07:43 Oukka wrote:
If you can understand why people think that the last case is important that would be nice. I think I can understand why you say it is not, that the actions are in the space where they're not illegal and interactions like that do happen and they don't get brought up in public and people do not have them attached to their names. Can you see why some people here, me included think it is relevant, and while even unfortunate that it has to come to public, it is important that it did? That it was brought to public as a last resort and that if we discourage people from sharing these stories we also inadvertently discourage them from sharing more serious cases. Again, it would be wonderful if they were dealt in private and in the relevant systems, but in cases like this the systems haven't been adequate.
It comes down to what is serious enough to deserve to be discussed. I believe that MeToo should be about sexual harassment and sexual assault, which have a very wide definition. To some people, the threshold seems to be whenever someone considers himself or herself to be a victim of a behavior, or being wronged. I believe that this threshold is dangerous because it's so low that it unfortunately derails, dilutes and discredits the MeToo movement.
Thank you for replying. I agree that these issues are serious enough to warrant care and consideration and they shouldn't be used to piggyback other agendas.
However, I do disagree with you about where that threshold is. I do also believe that it is the victim of the harassment who gets say whether they were harassed or not. Some people find different behaviours acceptable, that is normal, but nobody else gets to say what others have to be comfortable with, with regards to their own body and sexuality.
I agree that there is a lot of muddy waters when it comes to issues like this, where two people engaged with consent at the time, but someone realises afterwards that the other party didn't act in good faith. If it was easy to draw the line between right and wrong we wouldn't be having these conversations I'd assume. I find it extremely important though that when someone comes forward and speaks of a feeling victimised, that we don't dismiss it outright. A lot of the good of MeToo has been that people have been slightly more willing to speak up, and I think putting a bar too high would do more harm to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
