Swifty NPC removed from the game due to accusations?

[Omgwhat]

I never assumed anything. You did;



YOu outright said Blizzard believed her 100%. Now you hyave declared the accusations a "organized targetd event" . YOU assumed Blizzard thinks Swifty is 100% guilty and you have declared that all the accusers are liars. I have never assumed one way or the other. YOU are the one doing all the assuming, not me. Your own posts prove it.

Emm, because they did? hello

[Big Thanks]

If you mean the social justice shit they announced recently? It's a PR move, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks *ANY* of these companies truly care about social issues from *ANY* standpoint other than an easy PR win is just stupid. They literally needed a few more black people to be killed and weeks of protests to think now is the time? It's blatantly obvious it's because of the political climate.

*None* of them truly care, which is a slap in the face to those who are "fighting" for change. So from the perspective you asked, *ALL* of these companies will stop pandering as soon as possible - meaning as soon as everyone has moved on to the "next big thing".

Welp, they got me at first...i gave them good internet point currency for that one (>_>) but i guess is all just business as usual

[alturic]

Welp, they got me at first...i gave them good internet point currency for that one (>_>) but i guess is all just business as usual

You disagree? You truly think these companies care about social justice issues? Like, there is no PR involved at all, the executives *truly* care about these things?

[Kuja]

Guilty until proven innocent? Blizzard just lost some respect.

[schwarzkopf]

Guilty until proven innocent? Blizzard just lost some respect.

You realise Guilty until proven innocent is (like Freedom of Speech) - about the government.

In the wide world, you have no such right.

[Up The Gary]

Sexual assault: He once brushed past his accuser at a Blizzcon event or some crap... we know how easily these snowflakes get offended these days.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[alturic]

You realise Guilty until proven innocent is (like Freedom of Speech) - about the government.

In the wide world, you have no such right.

You realize that no-one is meaning it from the standpoint of law, right? I guarantee you if you ask the majority of people they view "innocent until proven guilty" as a mentality that every allegation should be proven, right?

I mean, unless of course you think we should actually view every allegation as true, until the accused can prove them false? If so, that's a scary fucking mentality - but truly you can't mean that as you can prove a negative.

[schwarzkopf]

You realize that no-one is meaning it from the standpoint of law, right?

Then maybe they shouldn't make statements that are from the standpoint of law then.

[TrollHunter3000]

But what is wrong with liking threesomes, or making out with those of the opposite sex if your partner doesn't mind, which at the time at least, she didn't seem to? So if by being "complicit" you mean he's into threesomes or making out with other girls - who cares? There's literally nothing wrong with that.

Note: I admit, the word "complicit" usually is used when implying you're doing something wrong or immoral.

From her own accusations and others accusing them both and even her own videos she posted, it seems she basically pressured girls into getting extremely intoxicated and seducing them. I think there's some grey area issues here on consent and them getting willfully drunk and all that but that's not really the main issue. From what others have accused her of, it seems she either made them to believe only she would be involved and then it turn into a threesome or basically using Swifty's status as a large streamer to take advantage of lesser known streamers.

The other person accusing Swfity (and even accusing his ex who made the initial accusations) may have been one of the few people to actually say no. Of course, we can't know for sure this person was telling the truth but if they are, I doubt it was a one time occurrence.

Other than that, sure. Consensual threesomes are fine. Getting girls stupid drunk and then bringing them back to your bf under the false pretense that they were only going to mess around with the girl and then taking advantage of them is not fine.

[Yarathir]

You realise Guilty until proven innocent is (like Freedom of Speech) - about the government.

In the wide world, you have no such right.

Courts don't have to teach you that being an asshole to somebody for no reason is bad.

Similarly, presumption of innocence and freedom of speech are both concepts that extend far past the courts.

[Kumorii]

You realise Guilty until proven innocent is (like Freedom of Speech) - about the government.

In the wide world, you have no such right.

It's still a good way to measure someone's character. If you judge someone before they are found guilty you are a horrible person regardless.

[TJ]

It's quite scary that a lot of these people (on here, Twitter, et al) are of voting age, or worse yet, eligible to be on a jury - eh?

Indeed. A sob story is all that is needed nowadays, seemingly.

[TrollHunter3000]

Sexual assault: He once brushed past his accuser at a Blizzcon event or some crap... we know how easily these snowflakes get offended these days.

Innocent until proven guilty.

His accuser was literally his girlfriend lmao. Maybe go read more before saying stupid shit.

[KrayZ33]

Then maybe they shouldn't make statements that are from the standpoint of law then.

But it's actually a human right to be seen as innocent until proven otherwise. (Article 11)
The laws in different countries are just there to protect that right.

[alturic]

From her own accusations and others accusing them both and even her own videos she posted, it seems she basically pressured girls into getting extremely intoxicated and seducing them. I think there's some grey area issues here on consent and them getting willfully drunk and all that but that's not really the main issue. From what others have accused her of, it seems she either made them to believe only she would be involved and then it turn into a threesome or basically using Swifty's status as a large streamer to take advantage of lesser known streamers.

The other person accusing Swfity (and even accusing his ex who made the initial accusations) may have been one of the few people to actually say no. Of course, we can't know for sure this person was telling the truth but if they are, I doubt it was a one time occurrence.

Other than that, sure. Consensual threesomes are fine. Getting girls stupid drunk and then bringing them back to your bf under the false pretense that they were only going to mess around with the girl and then taking advantage of them is not fine.

Oh, I apologize. I thought you were one of those with a pitchfork for Swifty.

I do agree it seems this Taka girl was fully aware of what she was doing, and went along with it. Hell, theres two videos alone I linked to where she seems happy at the club with Swifty, making out with girls and their “goodbye” stream before she moved when she was crying about leaving.

[TrollHunter3000]

Courts don't have to teach you that being an asshole to somebody for no reason is bad.

Similarly, presumption of innocence and freedom of speech are both concepts that extend far past the courts.

Since when? Especially freedom of speech. No one has the obligation to allow you to speak on their platforms for any reason. I don't have to assume innocence of anyone for any reason if I don't want to. In what way do they extend past the courts?

[schwarzkopf]

Similarly, presumption of innocence and freedom of speech are both concepts that extend far past the courts.

They do not, it sucks - but there no such concept outside the courts.

If you think otherwise, you've not been paying attention the last few years.

- - - Updated - - -

But it's actually a human right to be seen as innocent until proven otherwise. (Article 11)

Indeed - but check the article, it mentions NOTHING about being banned from a game.

[TrollHunter3000]

It's still a good way to measure someone's character. If you judge someone before they are found guilty you are a horrible person regardless.

If a bunch of people tell me someone is a shitty person but their own experiences, it makes be a shitty person to believe them and assume that person is shitty and I shouldn't associate with them? Even if they have no solid proof but just personal experience?

Seems odd.

[Seranthor]

You don't get the point. It is not that it was removed, but it is the fact that Blizzard 100% believes the so called 'victim' even though I might be a lie.

It doesn't say they believe him or not believe him, it says they dont want to be involved. As others have said, businesses aren't your friend, they exist to make money, and things that cause them to lose money, or could cause them to lose money are expendable.

[conceptKitty]

I think Blizz acted a little fast on this one but it's probably a better safe than sorry case in their defence.