Hearthpwn

As usual in this situation, there aren't any criminal charges filed so there won't be any finding of fact.  Accusations will tarnish reputations permanently with no actual resolution.

Quote from Malfurious >>

Quote from Anukai036 >>

what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

people shouldn't be banned until proven guilty in a court.

 That isn’t how it works. Perhaps you have heard of at-will employment? Or codes of conduct at companies? I don’t know what jobs you’ve had in your life, but are you saying that conviction of a felony is the only way to get fired from a job?

 Why do you willfully ignore his use of the word "should"?

We're talking about what should be, not what is.  We're all aware of the injustice false accusations visit almost without fail.

Also, in your rush to "educate", you mentioned an example that has nothing to do whatsoever with the topic at hand.  Codes of conduct have nothing to do with others' accusations.  There are certainly other clauses in a contract that can be used to break an obligation at the first sign of a PR problem, but codes of conduct don't touch on what is being discussed here unless the behavior was actually performed by the accused.

Quote from Psy_Kik >>

Again, I'd be using UK numbers rather US, but the reason abuse and assault numbers often get bundled with rape is they are both generally highlighted in relation to women and pitifully low conviction rates. I imagine the US justice system is much the same.

The implication is that the numbers are so low, that even the most staunch mysogynist would accept that, despite the variances you get from case to case, false accusations, dropped charges, etc that huge numbers of women (and likely huge majority compared to actual convictions) are being failed by the justice system. Women's rights activists would also point out that however many false accusations and such there are, these are vastly outweighed by the number of women who chose not to press charges in these circumstances, for fear of the system failing them, which arguably drops the % to truly abysmal sub-1% levels.

This creates the atmosphere in which companies have to be proactive in cases such as this Zalae's, and it's bad for everyone.

 It's hard to even make an educated guess on the unreported rape/sexual assault numbers, because . . . well, because they're unreported.  I would hope we've made some progress convincing women there's hope for justice, but I've personally observed a disturbingly large number of women in college who would claim to be a victim but were unwilling to attempt to press charges.

@ Diet

I chose rape statistics because assault stats are incredibly convoluted with all the different degrees.  In some studies, cat calling and whistling in close proximity to a woman have been included as instances of sexual assault, and regardless of legal definition, that sort of incident doesn't really apply to the situation here.  I do understand she did not accuse him of rape, though.

As for the Kavanaugh case, in the last post I brought him up because that's where all the rape stat studies I read originated.  In previous posts, he was just an example of someone who was persecuted in public opinion and the media without evidence.

@ Benelocky

That's 100% correct.  I don't really expect the corporations to be the agents of change in cases like these.  The only thing we as individuals can work on is our own response to these accusations.  Maybe one day, we can return a little sanity to the whole court of public opinion, but for now, I'd settle for just showing a company they don't need to jump the gun and ostracize someone just because of the accusation.

I'm not saying this to attack any particular poster, but in order to try to move the conversation forward, a couple of things really need to be settled.

1.  We all have the right to do a myriad of things that morally, societally, psychologically, any number of other "ally"s we shouldn't do.  I see zero posters arguing Blizzard doesn't have a right to suspend Zalae.  The discussion is at LEAST focused on whether it's a good thing to do in a societal sense, and in my case, focused on much larger ramifications in other areas of life.  Spamming the response that Blizzard has the right to do this is just repeating a point no one is arguing.

2.  On the subject of conviction rates, I don't want to try to go into assault as a whole because there's too many different types and the definitions vary slightly from state to state, but in terms of rape allegations, approximately 3% of charges filed with authorities result in a felony conviction.  Approximately 2-3% depending on your standard of proof result in a finding of fact that the accuser made knowingly false accusations.  Therefore, 94-95% of all rape allegations end in no conviction, which encompasses a large amount of scenarios including never making it to court, dropped charges, and "not guilty" verdicts. 

Sourcing for all of that is most readily available in the articles written in conservative press to refute certain claims made about the Kavanaugh accusers and the statistical likelihood that a woman is telling the truth when these sorts of accusations are made.  A lot of folks who were against Kavanaugh used the statistic about only 2-3% of allegations being "proven" false to suggest that 97-98% of allegations are true, when in reality, the huge majority of accusations are neither proven nor disproven.

Well yeah, if the allegations are true, proving something DID happen is a lot easier than proving it DIDN'T happen.  If she comes forward with any evidence beyond her word, this whole story starts changing rapidly.

Quote from Wrathblade >>

who cares about the entire situation cuz no one cares and it doesn't affect your life it doesn't affect your family and friends so u just basically move on nothing to see here it's just that simple 

 If you're narrow-minded enough to think that one accusation has no effect or relevance to future accusations, sure.  Having faced a similar situation myself, I respectfully disagree that this isn't relevant to others.

Quote from sheweek >>

I also hate this public laundry washing.. like complaining publicly to the community, that I am not getting enough oral sex? Where are we?

This kind of stuff you should on the first place work out together, maybe you can confide to a friend / therapist if you are seeing one, but no, you have to make articles on it, make youtuibe videos etc.. crazy world man..

 I've often wished there was some way to basically require someone to press charges before they could make public accusations like that.  There's no way that would work while still respecting freedom of speech, and in the end it would cause way more trouble than it would avoid, but still . . . watching people use the "court" of public opinion in lieu of actually using the courts because they know the Keemas of the world will be perfectly fine with societal punishment before any finding of fact.

The slander laws have a ridiculous requirement that says a slanderer must not only make false and damaging statements, but have reason to specifically know these statements are false.  Assuming these allegations are false, not only is it nearly impossible to prove since many of these actions would have happened (or not) in total privacy, it is also impossible to recover from any 3rd parties who call Zalae an abuser or woman-beater in the future, since those third parties would have legal cover by saying they were just quoting the accusations.

The whole process of proving slander and libel needs to be revisited.

Whoever said Zalae can sue blizzard if he's "proven innocent" (which btw never happens in court) is wrong.  There is no cause of action unless Blizzard is dumb enough to make defamatory statements regarding why they suspended him, and they aren't that dumb.

I was catching up on current events today, and turns out there's another example going on far more analogous to the situation at hand, not in nature of accusation, but in the overwhelming willingness of many to completely abandon the accused, and that is the Derek Chauvin murder trial.

I'll be happy to discuss details in private messages, but let's just say the popular narrative is that the prosecution has a slam dunk case against Chauvin, and any possibility of acquittal can be attributed to racism.  In reality, the prosecutor is utterly incompetent and has made several first-year law school mistakes, so much so that the defense has petitioned the court for permission to recall a prosecution witness AS A DEFENSE WITNESS (for those who aren't in tune with courtroom stuff, just take my word for it, that represents a Grade-A fuck up on the part of the district attorney).  Also in reality, the case has never been anywhere near as open and shut as has been portrayed in media.

The Chauvin case serves as a stark illustration on how these things can snowball way beyond the original accuser and accused.  In all likelihood, no neighborhoods will burn to the ground as a result of Zalae being accused.  The same can't always be said for these other cases.  None of this would be an issue if everyone was diligent in figuring out what is the truth and what is in any way substantiated by evidence, but as we see from posters like the immediate above mine, a large group of folks are willing to just assume things as fact and act accordingly.  That can get very dangerous very quickly.

Thank you Keema for conclusively proving my point.

You have zero basis to take her word over his and you have zero evidence to assume Blizzard mounted any investigation whatsoever, yet you assume so anyway.

I have no idea why you used my quote talking about Blizzard's rights, as I never suggested anything to the contrary.

EDIT:  Before 3nnui or Hoog suggests it, no Keema is not my alt account, though I have to admit, it was a very timely illustration of my recent post on what these accusations do for folks who have no respect for presumption of innocence as a societal precept (as opposed to simply a legal one).

Well Diet, when it comes to you or I, I have no doubt that just because a corp took a self-defensive action, our ability to remain stoic as to his guilt is still intact.  I really don't doubt that.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people say things like "he was a garbage human, I'm happy" and decidedly more scarily, we live in a world where Gloria Steinem and Maureen Dowd both wrote how even if Clinton had coerced women into sex, and in one case faced rape allegations, he deserved a pass because of his pro-abortion stance.

And no, those things SHOULDN'T in any way be related to each other, but it's just one more excuse for someone to use the appeal to authority (i.e. Blizzard wouldn't have taken action if they didn't have the "scoop" and know that he was really guilty).  All of that is chock full of fallacy and unworkable logic, but that has never stopped anyone from saying or believing it before.

That's why whenever anyone has the ability to in any way effect the philosophical presumption of innocence, it's my belief they should do what they can to do it.  The secondary ramifications of such corporate action reach far beyond one dude behind a computer screen.

 EDIT:  Btw, I finally read the accusations, and I hope that if they are fictional, Zalae can put together some witnesses that can help him out, because the damages here are going to be huge.

The quote you cite has nothing about legality whatsoever.

As I've already written, the presumption of innocence is a legal precept AND a philosophical stance on how society should handle accusations.

Expecting to give an accused the benefit of the doubt is not a belief that ends at the court room door.

Sorry for the double post, but I think it relevant to this story that the third or fourth post on this thread is a blue post warning us against "victim blaming".

I know full well the "victim" being referenced is the accuser, and I'm fully aware of the history of blame-shift in rape cases and other horror stories from the early days of prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases, but nevertheless, I find it sad that we have no idea who the victim is in this situation.

While I don't have any problem avoiding victim blaming, I actually include both parties in that concept since it is a very real possibility that Zalae is the victim here.  It's disappointing that no such enforcement appears for that sort of victim blaming.

 No one is suggesting there is a legal right being violated.  To pretend that's the only consideration in a discussion of what ought to be a societal approach to one person accusing another of a crime is as short-sighted as it is naive.

Quote from DietThunder >>

Can we stop acting like presumption of innocence has anything to do with Blizzard’s decision to have a particular person participate in their own event?

he is presumed innocent for a trial, he doesn’t face a loss of constitutional rights at the hands of the government because he is presumed innocent. Blizzard can do whatever they want to make their own events to their liking—in this instance they have recognized it’s a safer PR move to not give Zalae a spot.  Imagine one day a particular graphic symbol became synonymous with hate and Blizzard happened to have it very prominently displayed in marketing material. If they would choose to remove that symbol because it made their material more useful, that’s would be no different than what they have done here.

 That was the same crap people were bringing out for the Kavanaugh hearings.  Presumption of innocence is BOTH a legal and a philosophical precept.  Just because the legal precept is being respected doesn't mean there's carte blanche to shit on the philosophical belief that we shouldn't allow folks to have their lives destroyed without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

I'm an attorney, so I'll be the first to admit that the legal presumption is not in question here, BUT I'm also supposed to uphold both letter and spirit of laws and constitutional provisions whenever possible.  Nothing of what I have posted in this thread is meant to suggest that Zalae has a legal recourse . . . he most certainly does not.  Well, I suppose he could hit the ex gf for libel, but the tort of libel is almost impossible to enforce, which is another failing of our legal system.

Either way, Blizzard is certainly free to do whatever the hell it wants, but we shouldn't lose sight of the cancer that represents.  It contributes to a much larger discussion of tech control over the public discourse and touches on much bigger issues, all of which pertain to everyone taking part in modern media.