Considering the shit he deals with from idiots online, he’s pretty nice about it, tbh.
Vic Mignogna’s fans were and remain to this day the worst.
I admit I didn’t click through earlier but apparently the source these sites are using for their reporting on the matter is…Chris Avellone’s Medium blog. So, uh. Ain’t saying he’s lying, but that’s not exactly an unbiased third party record.
Kotaku reports that they received an email from Barrows:
On Monday March 27, Barrows emailed Kotaku and other press outlets a copy of the joint statement, requesting to “retract my previous comments concerning Christopher Avellone.”
Yeah that’s not the part I am skeptical of. It does appear that they made a joint statement. But as I mentioned earlier, I’ve seen these sorts of lawsuits result in public apologies not because the person apologizing truly believes in and wishes to make the apology, but as a legally mandated step as part of the judgment or settlement, so I would not be confident that that means much. Stuff about “seven figure settlements” and so forth seems entirely taken from Avellone posting on his blog though.
So, there definitely seems to have been a settlement, and there is a joint statement of apology. Beyond that, we have a very one-sided account of what happened.
It means that it was legally mandated, which kind of has more impact than whether they “wished to make the apology”.
I mean, lots of crappy people don’t ever want to make apologies for their actions, no matter how terrible. That doesn’t mean they didn’t do anything wrong.
Right, it means the lawsuit was settled and they were mandated to apologize. It doesn’t mean anything about the facts at issue. I would find an unprompted and sincere apology much more meaningful and relevant.
Sure, but that’s literally never going to happen in a case like this.
Not with that attitude, Kolbex! ;)
If I had a dollar…
None of that is applicable to this case. The only issue in this lawsuit was whether or not the accusers willfully lied by deliberately spreading falsehoods – knowingly lied. And it has been settled in Chris’s favour, with a substantial financial settlement to reflect the damage these lies caused – they knowingly lied and destroyed his career.
He’s the one who had the burden of proof, not them, and he succeeded in getting a settlement on that basis.
No, wasn’t referring to you, and agree the statement was badly articulated, even for its context. But yeah, it’s the accusers who have to pay the settlement.
If unpaid, it just becomes a debt, and in this context is a contractual debt by settlement agreement. Any creditor can use any legal recourse available to collect a debt - you’d basically file an enforcement action to seize any available assets. The debtor could seek bankruptcy protection, etc.
Read the settlement statement again.
Anything we have previously said or written about Mr. Avellone to the contrary was not our intent. We wanted to support women in the industry. In so doing, our words have been misinterpreted to suggest specific allegations of misconduct that were neither expressed nor intended.
They specifically do not admit that they did so intentionally.
A settlement is not proof, especially one tied to a statement where the side accused of libel does not admit that they did anything libelous.
Additionally, the financial payment is quite ambigous in Chris’ Medium post (and I will bet this was purposely done)
The parties resolved the matter and claims were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement that provides for a seven-figure payment that includes the return of the attorney fee award entered against Mr. Avellone in California.
That is extremely vague wording, and in a statement likely provided by multiple lawyers, I would have to imagine that the ambiguity means there is a lot more to that “seven figure payment” than Chris is getting paid 1-9 million dollars by these two women, especially when the statement is VERY specific in those two women not admitting that they made any libelous statements.
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.
Yeah. That’s just weasel wording that resulted from negotiation between the parties.
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.
Saying that would also be baseless speculation.
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.