Nothing to be sorry for and i am sure our Brig can fill you in on the infomation i am still drinking my morning coffee with semi closed eyes 
1 Like
That has not been the policy for almost a decade or more anymore. Now it’s quilty until proven innocent and even so FU nobody believes you are innocent either way.
I don’t mind that we are building a safer society but lunatics in charge have no backbone or common sense at all nowadays.
6 Likes
OK then, but I think we have to coldly stand back and consider that said accusers may have dark motives of their own-- that to me never seems to be even countenanced (and yes there’s again this thing called taste like one should never bluntly say to someone “Are you sure you’re telling the truth?”)
The situation is magnified enormously by media outlets and companies taking premature actions. I think it’s safe to bet what happened to the VOs was not a simple coincidence. These loud voices have responsibities of their own and there are things like charges of damages that exist to represent that.
Yes, you can’t expect the general public - and to a lesser degree that includes the media - to act professionally in these situations. However, these cases seem to have exploded way beyond the parallel truth that people do these days feel more empowered to report crimes-- and I think it’s fair to say not all of those reports are genuine (though the majority probably are).
I will ‘get over myself’ when people start making statements when they clearly have no clue as to how it works! So stop being so patronising when I am explaining how it actually -does- work!
Also, If lots of words scare you, I am neither your teacher, or your parent, so that is not my problem.
Because he -WASN’T-! That isn’t how it works. He had a contract for TBC. Well, technically WCIII and TBC. He carried out that contract. Right, OK, with me so far? So that work, that he was already paid for, stayed in place, even though he was not on Contract, and not doing any current work for Blizzard. Still with me? Right, so at a later juncture Blizzard decided to contract someone else, which they can do, they do not have a contract with Flynn, nor him with them. So Basically they got a new guy in to do the voice. They then backtracked it, the same as they have done for -several- other NPC’s in the past. Or are you saying there are some accusations against past VA contractors?
For Goodness sake, you are talking about something you know nothing about, why not listen to someone who -does- work in that industry!
For Blizzard? No, have I done it for others? Yes. So I can comment on it with surety. I do know what I am talking about, and therefore am getting sick and tired of people who don’t banging on about him being ‘Fired by Blizzard’ when they haven’t the faintest idea how it works?
I so, so want that to be true…
OK, what did he voice in WotLK? Cata? MoP? Legion?
You don’t pay people who don’t work for you!
I mean the dude has an impressive resume, I mean he really does! (Including oddly one computer game I helped to promote in the UK), but he really isn’t employed by Blizz, he just did contract work…
I think there is only one piece on Youtube, someone else’s saga that I voiced as an Orc, about Grommah. Aside from that, I’ve got an Audiobook job now, not only one book, but a series of six! Whoo! I get a 50% cut of royalties! Well, technically 45% cut, as both the author and myself are with the same agency, which means for a 10% fee, they handle all our tax returns. Still, Six books! Whoo! That is me in work for ages! As well as building up a good resume…
2 Likes
Curious that. :3
Working in an industry doesn’t exactly give you the right go ‘aha, I know everything about how this works at every company and every instance’ sorry.
4 Likes
I agree, however the civil sphere is so much more large, complex and varied than the criminal sphere, that there appears no more a sensible way to apply the law when it comes to civil affairs. It simply has to be a reactive form of engagement where the plaintiff responds to behaviour X by individual Y and takes them to court over it.
If it were to be applied somewhat proactively like criminal law (where known behaviour Z is stipulated as criminal) the body of law involved across all spheres, all possible interactions, all contexts would be too large as to be nearly impossible to keep track of, let alone draw up offences for. So it stands to reason that in this case instead some general rulings are drawn up as guidance, and when cases are brought, the judge will use these rulings as a guidance for hearing the individual case and assessing their judgement.
The alternative is to transfer civil behaviours into the canon of criminal law - aka you make it a criminal offence to allege things about people without evidence. I hope I don’t need to tell you how potentially messy doing this sort of thing could be given the sheer volume of possible complications.
All this said - it comes with the drawback that yes- because civil action is always “on the back foot” so to speak, damage has to be done before a case can be brought in the first instance, which isn’t ideal, but until we have Minority Report style tech with notions of “pre-crime” (to me, this is horrific) then we have no better system than the one we use.
What actually appears to be a “lack of consequences” for false accusers stems from two things mainly:
a) Some law systems do not punish them criminally (this depends on whether they have a criminal law drawn up), and where they do, often this is settled within civil courts anyway as it is an infraction “against the person” rather than against the Rule of Law.
b) It rests on the accused taking civil action against them and bringing the consequences.
There could be loads of reasons why someone whom is accused, but ultimately innocent, depends not to bring a civil case. Maybe they don’t want the stress of handling another case. Maybe the accuser is slightly unhinged so they take pity on them and decide extracting monies from them won’t make anything better. Maybe they want to “take the high road” - there’s more beyond these too.
But they’re a reality. Fact is the chap in this case could bring a civil case given the status of the accuser, but will he? Who knows.
1 Like
what damage xD just remove his stuff AFTER he’s found guilty? xd you’re all living in some flawed perception
3 Likes
Nobody cares about innocent until proven guilty. Everyone’s disposition is “I feel this person is guilty, therefore they are”. We had huge drama on the forums regarding Madeleine Roux. I went through all of the tweets, dug up context, presented it here. She’s not what she’s been accused of being. But people don’t care. And watch - someone will reply to me with their indignation against her. Truth doesn’t matter. Emotion wins all. The accusations against her were spawned by trolls who were looking to hurt SL’s launch. They twisted the truth and presented it in the only format that matters - an image macro. And everyone bought it. Because they don’t care about facts. As the saying goes - feelings don’t care about your facts.
You know why they bought it? Because it fit their prejudice. Just like here. The accusations against Quinton Flynn fit some people’s prejudice, so they see him as guilty, and they don’t fit other people’s so they see him as innocent. Yet another victim to cancel culture. It’s not about truth. Both camps will be right sometimes, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Innocent until proven guilty exists only in the legal system. In society, it has always been guilty until proven innocent, but even if you manage to prove your innocence, we’ll just torture you until you confess your guilt instead.
People have such double standards it’s crazy.
You know who wasn’t found guilty by the law? Methodjosh. But me and anyone else wouldn’t want him back and for Method to have kept him.
Sometimes evidence just isn’t there actually find someone guilty by the law. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t do it.
Except she is? People had the context, and it’s quite factual some of the stuff she said makes her out to be just that. Unlike you, I even chatted with her and the other 3 involved and guess what? They think it was fine because they think you CAN’T be racist to one skin tone and can’t be sexist to one gender.
Maybe if the accusations WERE false her NPC would’ve been removed? :3
1 Like
in this case there was a trial so appels and oranges
you got a lot of assumptions based on emotions in your post indeed
Yet Madeleine didnt have her work or NPC removed, while Quinton gets his work removed, why the double standarts then? Remove the works of everyone equally, or dont remove equally regarding acquisations. Also she was openly racist and sexist in several tweets, generalizing whole population instead of people who are actually at fault.
6 Likes
But that never actually went to court did it? I haven’t really seen anything about this after it went down last year so I could be wrong there.
for you /10
1 Like
That’s because there was no evidence. Which would by all the standards in this thread mean he’s innocent then right?
Yes, that’s how the law works.
Like I said - someone will reply to me with their indignation against her. I can’t believe you fell for this. It’s objectively true that you did not go to twitter, look through her timeline, found the specific tweets, got around protected accounts to discover the context in which they were sent. You didn’t go to the wayback machine to look at archived pages. I did all that.
So shut up. You have been lied to and you have bought the lie because it fits your worldview. You have simply seen tweets taken out of context and was like “yep, that’s good enough” and that was it.
At this point I’m beginning to give up correcting people’s misinformation. It takes too much labor and then nobody cares. All I can do is completely dismiss people who insist on being lied to.
nah you won’t xd
1 Like
look your emotions are taking over rationality!