- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 23,131
- Reaction score
- 33,504
Well god damn it, he confessed. And there I had started drafting a lengthy response at @GearSolidMetal ’s request over my lunch break as to why I was certain he was guilty. It’s moot now, but if anyone is curious on what my take was going to be prior to his confession I’ll still post it below here:
Ok, so I’ve finished reading through the 2024 posts in this thread. To me the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion to me is that the allegations absolutely have substance. I’m taking the following considerations into account:
1. The former Twitch employee that broke the story a few days ago is a person who at the time was in a position with Twitch where potentially he would be “in the know” as opposed to baseless speculation from some bystander.
2. Dr Disrespect’s “denial” on Twitter was barely a denial at all, and merely stated that the no wrongdoing was acknowledged and that the contract was paid out in full. But the thing is that doesn’t mean anything. Having acted as legal counsel employers for years it’s quite often more advisable to simply settle to avoid litigation. My guess is that Twitch would have found it better to simply pay him out for one of the two following reasons:
a) avoiding negative publicity for Twitch in respect to its “moral” culpability in providing a platform for which a celebrity streamer can prey upon minors; or
b) evidentiary issues in litigating his claim. The big one to me is that if a minor really was involved then it would potentially require subpoenaing said minor to give evidence at trial, which no lawyer wants to deal with if it can be avoided
As for the “no wrongdoing was acknowledged” bit that means literally nothing at all. Literally every single settlement agreement or release I’ve ever seen in my career has contained a “non-admission of liability” clause which basically says the parties agree that for the purpose of the settlement the employer is not saying they owe the money to the person threatening to sue them, and person suing is not saying they deserved to be fired.
3. By far the biggest red flag to me that the allegations have merit is the willingness on the part of this former Twitch guy to make this accusation publicly, and not anonymously, and face the wrath of a defamation law suit from the Doctor. Such an allegation if false would almost certainly immediately result in a cease and desist letter from his lawyers against the Twitch guy demanding a public retraction of the defamatory statements and failing that an emergency injunction from the court ordering the Tweet taken down and then suing for damages. In the absence of any of that it suggests to me the Twitch guy is confident that the truth is on his side.
Legally speaking the most unusual aspect of this whole thing is the likelihood that Twitch could sue the guy for breach of confidentiality. Any settlement agreement between Doc and Twitch would have been confidential, and for this guy to go public with it would potentially incur liability by him to Twitch. If anything I’m surprised that the Doc’s lawyers didn’t demand of Twitch that their lawyers shut the guy down. It doesn’t matter that he’s a former employee, those restrictive covenants regarding confidentiality last in perpetuity.
Ok, so I’ve finished reading through the 2024 posts in this thread. To me the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion to me is that the allegations absolutely have substance. I’m taking the following considerations into account:
1. The former Twitch employee that broke the story a few days ago is a person who at the time was in a position with Twitch where potentially he would be “in the know” as opposed to baseless speculation from some bystander.
2. Dr Disrespect’s “denial” on Twitter was barely a denial at all, and merely stated that the no wrongdoing was acknowledged and that the contract was paid out in full. But the thing is that doesn’t mean anything. Having acted as legal counsel employers for years it’s quite often more advisable to simply settle to avoid litigation. My guess is that Twitch would have found it better to simply pay him out for one of the two following reasons:
a) avoiding negative publicity for Twitch in respect to its “moral” culpability in providing a platform for which a celebrity streamer can prey upon minors; or
b) evidentiary issues in litigating his claim. The big one to me is that if a minor really was involved then it would potentially require subpoenaing said minor to give evidence at trial, which no lawyer wants to deal with if it can be avoided
As for the “no wrongdoing was acknowledged” bit that means literally nothing at all. Literally every single settlement agreement or release I’ve ever seen in my career has contained a “non-admission of liability” clause which basically says the parties agree that for the purpose of the settlement the employer is not saying they owe the money to the person threatening to sue them, and person suing is not saying they deserved to be fired.
3. By far the biggest red flag to me that the allegations have merit is the willingness on the part of this former Twitch guy to make this accusation publicly, and not anonymously, and face the wrath of a defamation law suit from the Doctor. Such an allegation if false would almost certainly immediately result in a cease and desist letter from his lawyers against the Twitch guy demanding a public retraction of the defamatory statements and failing that an emergency injunction from the court ordering the Tweet taken down and then suing for damages. In the absence of any of that it suggests to me the Twitch guy is confident that the truth is on his side.
Legally speaking the most unusual aspect of this whole thing is the likelihood that Twitch could sue the guy for breach of confidentiality. Any settlement agreement between Doc and Twitch would have been confidential, and for this guy to go public with it would potentially incur liability by him to Twitch. If anything I’m surprised that the Doc’s lawyers didn’t demand of Twitch that their lawyers shut the guy down. It doesn’t matter that he’s a former employee, those restrictive covenants regarding confidentiality last in perpetuity.
