We are not talking about he same things - you were stating that the accusers were unable to prove that Chris did what they accused – but that was not the subject of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was initiated to prove that they defamed Chris, so it was Chris who was obliged to prove that they knowingly lied/spread false statements which caused him damage – as several people have told you, that is a very high standard.
But Chris was able to get a settlement despite having that burden - financial compensation plus an express statement that he did not do the things he was accused of - the fact that they also provide an exculpatory rationale for the harm they committed is just face saving rhetoric devoid of substance – the substance of the matter is they had to agree the statements were false and provide compensation.
Agree that the payment figure (and also just the fact that a financial statement was made public as part of the settlement) leave ambiguity on the quantity Chris is entitled to receive, and the likelihood of recovery (or even any expectation of recovery) of any or all of that amount - but it’s baseless speculation to provide reasons for that ambiguity - parties typically want it kept private, so the fact that we got any related statement is more disclosure than typical.
And the latter part of your excerpt above is completely irrelevant, as explained in my prior post.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure they’d have to have had the lawsuit go to court to actually do much to establish facts. What a settlement says is that both parties were willing to settle instead of go to court. That could mean that Avellone was wronged and could prove it in court to an extent that a settlement would be preferable, sure. Or it could mean that the women in question were tired of dealing with this shit. Or any number of other things. We can’t really infer much from “seven figure settlement” because a) we only have Avellone’s word for that number and b) it’s already been established that there are common practices that could be described as a seven figure payout without Avellone making any money or the women in question paying any.
I’d strongly suspect that this amount was paid by the parties’ insurance carrier or some other deep pocket. If they did not cut the promised check, the settlement would be void and the lawsuit would proceed. Garnishment and liens would result from a judgment, which usually results from court action rather than contractual language between the parties, unless part of the settlement was a stipulation that they consented to a judgment if the amout was not paid.
Also, note that the vast majority of settlements between parties do not result in a specific admission of liability or bad action on the part of either party, but this one appears to have such an admission as part of the settlement. Very, very rare to see that.
Also also, the fact that so many folks are eager to disregard the statement obtained as a result of the settlement and insist that he must be a bad guy who deserves to never work again in his chosen industry is a pretty decent illustration of the extreme reputational damage that allegations of this kind cause. Probably should have been eight figures.
And with that ambiguity, it is all speculation on to what the financial compensation ended up being.
So, when you say that
It is ambiguous in the language that he was even the one receiving the 7 figure payment. It specifically does not state that he received that financial compensation.
Many people are saying this, but is it significant? If it were untrue, don’t you think one of the other parties would have said something by now? Unless you’re suggesting that it somehow is a term of the settlement that Avellone be allowed to lie?
It’s been “established” by a breezy and off the cuff statement by a single loudmouth lawyer on Twitter, at least far as what’s been posted in this thread goes.
They can’t because I am sure there is a confidentiality agreement, which is why when asked about the settlement, the parties have stated, that they have to refer to the statement.
I don’t know! It feels significant that we are taking the unproven word of one of the two parties to the settlement without any other sources, but sure, maybe it isn’t.
And yes, confidentiality statements cover a ton of lying in the legal world. Lying isn’t illegal, unless it is done in certain circumstances, like to the FBI, or investors etc.
Scrub the record of everything involving the libel suit and it’s still evident that he’s a risk that’s not worth taking when weighed with the peace of mind of his coworkers. Why should they have to worry about the possibility of getting texts about cunnilingus from him, or having him get gropey at a convention? None of this is ordinary, excusable, or worth tolerating. He’s spent decades destroying his own reputation.
As far as we know he sent one text to a woman who flirted with him beforehand, and he apologized immediately afterwards. And his “being gropey at a convention” was a lie by Bristol that was also retracted.
He spent decades building his reputation, to get it destroyed by couple of lies and press eager to report and even make up new lies (like the article on “thegamer.com” where they claim “he drugged and raped countless women”).
Of course they had to retract them based on the settlement agreement, that isn’t in question. The question is whether they were lying the whole time. All we have is their statement and based on that, the answer is “yeah, probably”. But not definitively.
Yeah, like…his very publically acrimonious split with Obsidian would I think be plenty to make most employers think twice about hiring him and that’s on the record. Personally I love the man’s work so I’d be happy to have a more concrete demonstration of him not being a creep but I don’t feel like this clears very much up because of the limited info and the potential nuances of how we could have ended up here. A settlement is not a win in court, it’s an agreement not to have the court fight. I think having the fight would have probably done more to clarify, But if both parties preferred this, then they get to live with it, I suppose.
From all I’ve seen, his only past action that would truly give me pause is badmouthing his former colleagues by name. I wouldn’t hire anyone who did that without a very good reason.
His other issues all have to do with poor decision-making skills, so I wouldn’t have him manage anyone, but he’s clearly a brilliant designer and those sorts of people can work out in their own bubble. But if he’s going to burn other employees, no.
I agree this was some via-Twitters bullshit sideshow compared the main feature, which was how he left Obsidian: burning every last bridge there. But I guess this was worse for him.
