It's 100% not her fault, but no one should never go to a shady street at night.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Console modder cdgexe permanently banned from GDQ after sexual harassment allegations
- Thread starter Deleted member 5491
- Start date
It's 100% not her fault, but no one should never go to a shady street at night.
that doesn't sound very twitter-like tbh. it'd be nice if it was
also, his real name is chad? smh
User banned (2 weeks): excusing and diminishing sexual harassment over a series of posts + antagonizing another member via PM
My point is that sexual harassment is, as far as I know, illegal and being a douchebag is not. It is not clear to me that the guy sexually harassed her which is why I wondered the extent to which someone is responsible towards another adult.
I don't think this is as black and white as you're making it out to be. I think that context matters. This is not a clear cut grooming case were a pederast lures a minor with promises and then coerces her into sex.
We're talking about 2 adults that made plans to be intimate with each other and then one of them decided not to be intimate and another one decided not to be in the same place as the other. Now as adults the REASONABLE thing to do here would've been to find a middle ground that would satisfy both parties. Clearly the dude is far from a grownup but I ask again, to which extent are you responsible for another adult? What are you guilty for here? Being an asshole? Willingly endareging someone? or sexual harassment?
I agree with all of you, he has no one but himself to blame. She had no obligations to have sex with him, but he was obliged to care for her once she had taken the first flight. It's something that happens quite often with people meeting on the internet and socially awkward loners who think that spending money will guarantee love in return.
I agree.
He is 100% the bad guy here but you should never trust an online ''friend'', especially when that ''friend'' offers you a trip to somewhere far away.
Raising awareness is equally important as condemning the bad guy. Do not fall for traps like these people.
Workplace sexual harassment is a civil crime. What he did is probably not illegal, but that's not the standard being discussed. What he did is certainly enough to merit a lifetime ban from GDQ and could potentially see him facing a civil suit from the victim.
This thread got the reaction that I thought the Blizzard employee being racially abused to the point of suicide would have gotten.
Fuck bullies regardless of race, gender, creed, origin.
This dude is a piece of shit and I'm actually glad he posted everything and kept digging himself deeper. No way out.
People get rejected every day - move the fuck on without threats or harassment.
Fuck bullies regardless of race, gender, creed, origin.
This dude is a piece of shit and I'm actually glad he posted everything and kept digging himself deeper. No way out.
People get rejected every day - move the fuck on without threats or harassment.
Ok, so it feels weird to talk about it this way because its hard for me to place myself on that situation as I don't think I'm an asshole and I would've acted differently but: My understanding is that the dude kicked her out because she didn't want to sleep (as in actual sleep) with her. He was OK with not having sex, he "needed" someone to sleep next to him because of his insommnia (if this is true or not, I've no fucking way to know, seems he has people that can corroborate this but who knows). From what I read, his way to responding to the situation wasn't to say "sleep with me or get out" it was "since you don't want to sleep with me I don't want you here". I think that after he was rejected he was going to kick her out not matter what which is why I think he's an asshole and not a sexual harasser. Again, my interpretation, no one here knows them, no one knows what he's really capable of which is why I'm not so fast in passing judgement.
I guess there is a chance, however tiny, that he didn't even give her the first option and wasn't attempting blackmail. Meaning he would have kicked her out no matter what she did or said after that because he felt it was over. Which makes him still a giant asshole ofc
At this point he doesn't deserve this benefit of the doubt though. His other comments are pure trash
Imagine thinking posting all of that publicly would make you look good. Good riddance.
"We didn't even fuck!"
"We didn't even fuck!"
Given all of what happened in The Room, that's.... a pretty interesting take unless the director himself was involved in something.
But as for this guy, the thing is that he could have easily kept his cool and either come out with a valuable learning experience or a FWB (the discord convo shows super mismatched expectations of "we're going to cuddle and fuck!" Vs "if we're cool, we MIGHT cuddle and fuck"). But Jesus Christ man, he just keeps making it worse
What a fucking scumbag.If you needed any more evidence that this guy is a piece of shit here he is deliberately dead naming a trans person:
Hopefully this shit get's him blacklisted from the entire community, not just *GDQ. It'd be great if people like Zero stopped using his tools.
If it can be demonstrably proven by a lawyer that this was sexual harassment then that's that. But since I doubt it'll get to that point:. I do think that in this situation there's a fine line between harassment and misbehavior and it is not clear to me the line was crossed.
Ex-Blizzard employee sees their new Soldier 76 story and facade of inclusiveness which triggers him and he goes on to detail his experience of constant racial abuse by a co-worker-turned-superior that drove him, at its crux, to plan his suicide with lasting mental health issues.
Ex-Blizzard Employee Details His Terrible Time At Company
I know this is OT so maybe I'll get warned or something but I was disappointed with the lack of coverage of it, as some of us expected this type of reaction from Era on that thread.
The tool is open source and totally documented, anyone can make it, anyone can fork the source code too. Zero already disassociated with him. Stopping the use of an item he already paid for doesn't serve any purpose. He already paid for the thing, the "damage" is done and it's not his fault, all he has to do now is stop advertising it and link to the DIY process if someone asks how to get it.
There's no difference, the woman suffered through the consequences of not sleeping with him, if she had slept, he would have not kicked her out. It's more like a implicit blackmail instead of him going "you either sleep with me or you're out". It's textbook manipulation.
There are a couple of things here that I'm going to try to give you benefit of the doubt on, because you legitimately might not know.
1. Sexual harassment doesnt have as high a bar to cross as you seem to think. He used his relative power in the situation to coerce her into a position she didnt want to be in.
2. Theres no functional difference between "sleep with me or get out" vs "you didnt sleep with me, so get out". In both situations, there was retribution for refusing him.
3. Sexual harrassment doesnt require sex. So if the story about him just wanting her to sleep next to him is true, it doesnt matter. It was still an intimate and vulnerable position that she didn't want to be in.
And even if EVERYTHING up to that point wasnt harrassment, his behavior afterwards, including posting intimate chat logs and threatening to cancel her plane ticket home absolutely constitute harrassment.
Well, that's what I understood from the OP. What did I miss? Honest question.
I'm not sure he legally has any obligation though. From a law perspective, he agreed to give something (the plane ticket and pay for the room). But giving is not trading. You're free to give something, but you're also free to cancel what was supposed to be a gift. It's not like a trading agreement. It must depend on the country, but I'm not sur he has legally any obligation.
Edit: it doesn't apply to a situation in which a person would be in danger, but if that person has the resources to come back home by himself/herself, there's no obligation from what I understand.
Yeah, maybe not? I honestly don't know, but that's why said potentially. If I were her I'd look into it, but that's entirely her decision.
Jesus Christ this is a bad understanding of the law. Also, I can't believe how casually people here can think of these sorts of things transactionally. By paying for someone's ticket and accommodation you've created something in law called a "duty of care". You can't just abandon someone and if you abandon them because of reasons of sexual coercion it's kind of double not good.
Maybe I'm off (kind of a hindsight thing) but it seemed to me even in the DMs she was starting to have doubts about having sex with him. The last thing she said was talking about getting to know each other a bit more and feeling the situation out.
Fucker won't be missed.
Fucker won't be missed.
If you needed any more evidence that this guy is a piece of shit here he is deliberately dead naming a trans person:
It was pretty clear he is a horrible piece of shit before anything. Normal people don't say "Defending your fellow female"
Dude is a fuckboi who thought paying for someones plane ticket and hotel was going to get him laid. Even in the DM's it's pretty obvious she started having reservations about the entire thing.
I'm sure the moment she met him her fucking alarm bells started blaring, it's not shocking she bailed out of that.
Duty of care implies a significant economic harm. It depends on the victim's resource, but I'm not sure a plane ticket can be considered as significant. It depends on her resources.
For starters, in your made up situation, kicking the person out of your house isn't going to leave them stranded in a strange city.
Secondly, the only reason they came your place was to have sex, so when that isn't happening there's no need for them to stay. Which is not the case here, as the primary reason was to attend the event, and also, you know, not be sleeping on the goddamn street.
Thirdly, you aren't in control of that person's ability to get home in the situation you made up. Whereas here we have someone who threatened to prevent them getting home.
And those are just a few. There's so many differences I'm baffled that you think they're comparable.
Although considering you replied to me instead of one of the other posts which were already explaining why you're wrong, maybe you aren't arguing in good faith.
I'm fairly sure he'll never understand what he did wrong. He doesn't seem to be capable of that.
He seems to have mentioned previously being autistic. I wonder if that has anything to do with explaining his behavior?
Obviously he handled everything incredibly poorly, especially if he claims complete innocence.
At the very least he didn't cancel the flight according to his most recent tweets so she has a means of getting home.
Obviously he handled everything incredibly poorly, especially if he claims complete innocence.
At the very least he didn't cancel the flight according to his most recent tweets so she has a means of getting home.
Um, no?
This tweet was retweeted by Chad
He is just a horrible person, not really much to dissect.
I wasn't offering it as an excuse to absolve him of what he did, as if he commuted sexual assault he's entirely in the wrong, I am merely wondering if he didn't truly grasp how he was handling things.
He seems articulate enough and able to grasp the theoretical principles of interpersonal interaction going by the Discord logs. It's just when it comes to his entitlement that his lack of ability to understand seems to kick in.
I'd say he's just a dickwad.
Honestly, he seems very in tune with the situation and his continual assurance of safety and comfort gives off that impression as well. I've never in my life had to give off so many assurances for honest intentions. Dude slowly turned a room into cuddles and this and that. She certainly should have noticed what was going on, but it doesn't change the situation either way if she simply changed her mind after the fact. He clearly saw the situation as a transaction and his response after the fact backs that up.
A duty of care does not need to be with regard to economic harm only.
I'm not sure if one is established here or not. But certainly, a duty of care can be established to confer an obligation to prevent bodily or tortious harm too.
Erm, are you sure you're commenting the right poster? I never said any of these things. When did I say kicking someone out of your house won't leave them stranded? When did I mention the part "since you came to have sex and that isn't happening, no need to stay", etc. Requesting sex from anyone for any reason is wrong. Putting people in a difficult situation because they refuse to have sex is wrong. Very wrong.
My one and only comment was this: expecting sex and punishing people for not offering it is wrong. Also, never let anyone but someone really close (or your company for a business trip) pay for your travels. I am not a fan of her decision making. That is literally all I said.
Ultimately, I'm not blaming her, it's 100% her right *not* to have sex with anyone. Also, stranding her away from home - not cool. But, again, I do think it's really dangerous accepting anyone pay for anything and putting yourself in a position where you could be coerced into something you don't want to do. That's it. The only thing. You literally made up the things I said - or confused me with someone else.
At the end of the day - the blame is on him and only him.
Last edited:
Oh god yeah, I thought you were the guy who made the initial weird defence that I responded to. My bad.
That'd be why the response seemed so bizarre.
Actually, thinking about it, I think I remember accidentally replying to someone else in that post and editing it, so if that was you maybe that was the issue.
(Although to be honest, you're also being a bit victim-blamey here too. Saying your "not a fan" of how a victim of sexual assault acted is kinda needlessly shitty. There's no real need for you to chime in with criticism here.)
"Duration pending"
Hey admins do you really want these kind of people on the forums? He clearly share the sentiments about sexual payoffs/rewards of that shithead, even mentioning fucking "fraud"
ERA is going down the drain, I get not wanting to be like the old NeoGAF waving permabans like nothing but you guys clearly haven't found the middle ground yet
Edit: after thinking about everything - my post was not appropriate after all.
Last edited:
Maybe just don't come into threads like this and start criticising victims at all? It's not like she's asking for your advice, or even reading it.