Switch Theme:

Pablo has been let go from FLG  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 StrayIight wrote:

It's interesting to hear he's active here. I've heard him speak about Dakka quite disparagingly on 'Signals from the frontline'.


I wouldn't call it active. It's pretty much purely to advertise various FLG revenue streams (events, merch, commission services, etc.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 17:55:47


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Sterling191 wrote:
 StrayIight wrote:

It's interesting to hear he's active here. I've heard him speak about Dakka quite disparagingly on 'Signals from the frontline'.


I wouldn't call it active. It's pretty much purely to advertise various FLG revenue streams (events, merch, commission services, etc.)


Frontline Gaming uses Dakka for advertising. Probably safe to say the company doesn't participate beyond that.

Responses to the letter I've seen elsewhere have been consistent with this thread. Frontline Gaming should get the message.

As for Frontline Gaming responding - no upside in doing so. Drawing more attention to the letter only makes them look worse.

The irony is obvious. In the letter, Frontline Gaming claims they care about the community and felt they had a responsibility to alert people about Pablo being such a bad hombre. If a single word of that was sincere, they would have posted it on Dakka themselves - you know, since the forum is a communication channel for the company.

This reminds me so much of the situation with Blue Table Painting and the Chaos Dwarves army. The owner shafted a customer over a very expensive paint job and pretended no one noticed. Let's see how long Reece pretends we're not paying attention.

   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator





West Virginia

The possibility I could see for the wording would be something where Pablo has possibly stolen from the company and has been selling that stolen product himself without reporting it. This would explain why they do not detail the offense (legal action pending) and also why they are warning people to limit interactions with him (if you buy something from him that was stolen it could possibly be confiscated from you as evidence in the legal case).

I am no law expert, but that could possibly explain the strangeness of the statement.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

yes, this is a reason why such things happens

but than you would not write something like "keeping with our values"

in this case it can be that he stole something to sell it off on the black market, as well as secretly painting Tau, or just was planning to talk about Mantic Firefight instead of 40k in the next podcast

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The possibility I could see for the wording would be something where Pablo has possibly stolen from the company and has been selling that stolen product himself without reporting it. This would explain why they do not detail the offense (legal action pending) and also why they are warning people to limit interactions with him (if you buy something from him that was stolen it could possibly be confiscated from you as evidence in the legal case).

I am no law expert, but that could possibly explain the strangeness of the statement.


...this is exactly why the sort of detail-free defamation that FLG's statement was full of is so problematic. Now we have people speculating with zero evidence that Pablo was embezzling, when in reality nobody has any clue. You may have worded this as "maybe" personally and I'm not trying to blame you for it - it's a predictable reaction of that sort of statement - but through the magic of Internet Telephone, someone else is going to read this and then repeat it as "he was doing that!" and before you know it it's become Accepted Internet Fact and the guy's reputation is ruined beyond repair, even if the truth is completely different.

Please, people: don't speculate about things you have no idea about that have the potential to destroy someone's future life prospects.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 20:32:56


 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




Edit : removed my comment as noticed the mods had requested no more talk about death head badge. Apologies hadn't read through the full thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 20:45:32


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




edit: Guy spotted the prior mod request, ignore this post

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 20:47:14


 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The possibility I could see for the wording would be something where Pablo has possibly stolen from the company and has been selling that stolen product himself without reporting it. This would explain why they do not detail the offense (legal action pending) and also why they are warning people to limit interactions with him (if you buy something from him that was stolen it could possibly be confiscated from you as evidence in the legal case).

I am no law expert, but that could possibly explain the strangeness of the statement.


That's also my interpretation reading between the lines. Makes the most logical sense.



   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





Pickled_egg wrote:
 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The possibility I could see for the wording would be something where Pablo has possibly stolen from the company and has been selling that stolen product himself without reporting it. This would explain why they do not detail the offense (legal action pending) and also why they are warning people to limit interactions with him (if you buy something from him that was stolen it could possibly be confiscated from you as evidence in the legal case).

I am no law expert, but that could possibly explain the strangeness of the statement.


That's also my interpretation reading between the lines. Makes the most logical sense.



No.

I'm in full agreement with Yuki above. We don't get to speculate on what Pablo may have done, and doing so makes us no better than Reese and Frankie making that statement. You can hurt his future prospects and reputation further by doing so.

I don't think it's right to engage in apologetics on FLG's behalf either.

Regardless of what Pablo (who I am in no way a fan of incidentally - I think his content is pretty terrible), may have done, they do not get to use their platform and position to damage his employability without serious justification. Not only that, they essentially implied that the community should effectively shun him. Both, on nothing more than their say so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:01:34


 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 StrayIight wrote:
Pickled_egg wrote:
 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
The possibility I could see for the wording would be something where Pablo has possibly stolen from the company and has been selling that stolen product himself without reporting it. This would explain why they do not detail the offense (legal action pending) and also why they are warning people to limit interactions with him (if you buy something from him that was stolen it could possibly be confiscated from you as evidence in the legal case).

I am no law expert, but that could possibly explain the strangeness of the statement.


That's also my interpretation reading between the lines. Makes the most logical sense.



No.

I'm in full agreement with Yuki above. We don't get to speculate on what Pablo may have done, and doing so makes us no better than Reese and Frankie making that statement. You can hurt his future prospects and reputation further by doing so.

I don't think it's right to engage in apologetics on FLG's behalf either.

Regardless of what Pablo (who I am in no way a fan of incidentally - I think his content is pretty terrible), may have done, they do not get to use their platform and position to damage his employability without serious justification. Not only that, they essentially implied that the community should effectively shun him. Both, on nothing more than their say so.


Then close the thread if you can't handle adults drawing conclusions based on what's heavily implied in FLG's statement.

I see a lot of people questioning FLG's integrity and speculating as to their motives without being in full possession of all the facts, which is no different to what we are doing, but you aren't leaping to FLG's defense.

I'm not a FLG apologist either, but the door has to swing both ways.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:20:10


 
   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





Pickled_egg wrote:


Then close the thread if you can't handle adults drawing conclusions based on what's heavily implied in FLG's statement.

I see a lot of people questioning FLG's integrity and speculating as to their motives but you aren't leaping to FLG's defense.

I'm not a FLG apologist either, but the door has to swing both ways.


I'm aghast that any reasonable 'adult' would think it ok to draw the conclusion that 'Pablo has been stealing and reselling said stolen goods'.

You please show me what in that statement can be used to draw that conclusion. Because that conjecture is precisely what we have an issue with.

Again, it is not ok for anyone to be doing ,potentially, literal harm to this individual and their family, based on idiot internet guesswork, and poorly thought-through comments.

If someone had said 'Perhaps this involves a legal issue', then fine. But 'Perhaps Pablo committed [insert specific crime]' is simply not. In many places, it's dangerously close to slander.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 kodos wrote:
but than you would not write something like "keeping with our values"


Their value base involves denial, self-justification and smearing of critics in the face of placing obvious nazi iconography on display.

Their values aren't worth gak *already.*

This directly impacts the present statement since FLG themselves refer to it. Trying to exclude their past behaviour when they couch the present scenario in those terms is pure whitewash.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Pickled_egg wrote:


Then close the thread if you can't handle adults drawing conclusions based on what's heavily implied in FLG's statement.

I see a lot of people questioning FLG's integrity and speculating as to their motives without being in full possession of all the facts, which is no different to what we are doing, but you aren't leaping to FLG's defense.

I'm not a FLG apologist either, but the door has to swing both ways.


That's a false equivalency. FLG put out a statement; criticizing that statement is not unfair speculation, it's a reaction to something FLG itself put out. It's not defaming someone to criticize what they actually said. When you open your mouth, you lose the right to complain when others respond to what you say.

On the other hand, speculating about what the subject of the defamatory statement may have done, when you don't actually have any actual idea, is both irresponsible and serves to amplify the effect of the defamation.

If you find yourself having to "read between the lines" of a defamatory statement, it's a good clue you shouldn't be. If and when Pablo makes his own statement, that is when you can talk about how "the door has to swing both ways." In this case, it's more like you saw FLG swing the door into Pablo's face, then gave it a second swing into his face while saying "oh well, doors are gonna swing."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:35:06


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

I should know better, but Dakka's zest for playing amateur attorney is really bad today. Let's start with the thing that made me laugh out loud:

yukishiro1 wrote:
...this is exactly why the sort of detail-free defamation that FLG's statement was full of is so problematic.


Pretty much by definition, defamation requires a false statement, and a statement that is vague and lacking in details cannot be false. Saying a person "acted against our values" is an opinion, which is protected speech and not defamation. Like it or not, a person or company can say "this person is a bad guy, you shouldn't trust them," and there is really no legal claim to be made.

I will agree with the assessment that a letter like this is unusual. Normally when a business terminates an employee, they don't comment at all. Given that the employee in question is a front facing person, and is, at least within the niche of 40k, "internet famous," a company actively separating themselves from somebody they see as damaging to their reputation is not unusual.

So, why no specifics in the letter? I have a bit of a rule of thumb, which is that when a statement comes out that seems highly polished, but also seems uncertain about what it's trying to say, the root cause is a schism within the group that issues the statement. My guess is that there were some within FLG who wanted to fully out Pablo for whatever he did, and some who wanted to more quietly let him go. Statements like this are the sort of mushy mouthed compromise that are often referred to as camels... you know, the horse that was designed by committee?


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Sterling191 wrote:
 StrayIight wrote:

It's interesting to hear he's active here. I've heard him speak about Dakka quite disparagingly on 'Signals from the frontline'.


I wouldn't call it active. It's pretty much purely to advertise various FLG revenue streams (events, merch, commission services, etc.)


I'm trying to decide if I'm bored enough to poke my nose in one of those threads and ask if their communications regarding the event will be more professional than their recent efforts regarding an ex-employee...

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 StrayIight wrote:
Pickled_egg wrote:


Then close the thread if you can't handle adults drawing conclusions based on what's heavily implied in FLG's statement.

I see a lot of people questioning FLG's integrity and speculating as to their motives but you aren't leaping to FLG's defense.

I'm not a FLG apologist either, but the door has to swing both ways.


I'm aghast that any reasonable 'adult' would think it ok to draw the conclusion that 'Pablo has been stealing and reselling said stolen goods'.

You please show me what in that statement can be used to draw that conclusion. Because that conjecture is precisely what we have an issue with.

Again, it is not ok for anyone to be doing ,potentially, literal harm to this individual and their family, based on idiot internet guesswork, and poorly thought-through comments.

If someone had said 'Perhaps this involves a legal issue', then fine. But 'Perhaps Pablo committed [insert specific crime]' is simply not. In many places, it's dangerously close to slander.


Yet you're totally fine with all the conjecture about FLG and their motives?

This whole thread is speculation, conjecture and people drawing their own conclusions based on the information at hand.

As I say the door swings both ways.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:35:24


 
   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





Pickled_egg wrote:


Yet you're totally fine with all the conjecture about FLG and their motives?

This whole thread is speculation, conjecture and people drawing their own conclusions based on the information at hand.

As I say the door swings both ways.



I absolutely am. They have made a public statement which invites criticism. Their behaviour here should be questioned.

There is nothing speculative about the substance of a written statement and the likely affect it will have on the individual named in it.

On the other hand, Pablo has said nothing, and we have no indication whatsoever if he has even been guilty of an act that warrants the kind of questioning of his character that FLG have called for and that you seem happy to engage in.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:39:45


 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 StrayIight wrote:
Pickled_egg wrote:


Yet you're totally fine with all the conjecture about FLG and their motives?

This whole thread is speculation, conjecture and people drawing their own conclusions based on the information at hand.

As I say the door swings both ways.



I absolutely am. They have made a public statement which invites criticism. Their behaviour here should be questioned.

There is nothing speculative about the substance of a written statement and the likely affect it will have on the individual named in it.

On the other hand, Pablo has said nothing, and we have no indication whatsoever if he has even been guilty of an act that warrants the kind of questioning of his character that FLG have called for and that you seem happy to engage in.


I watched the podcast where they initially announced that Pablo had left the company, they left it very short and sweet simply stating he had left and was no longer associated with the company. they then got asked like a dozen times in chat why he was leaving and why he wasn't getting any kind of send off like previous staff members that left had received. I mean he had been with FLG for many years and was clearly tight with them on a personal level.
So it was patently obvious to anyone with a brain that he must have done something serious to be dismissed in that manner.
I then watched the subsequent podcast and again they were inundated with comments along the lines of "Why are you doing Pablo so dirty?" "Wheres Pablo" "Why did you sack Pablo?" etc etc. At which point Reece said they were going to put out a statement.

So I'm not really sure what you want them to do, they put out a statement you criticise them, they don't put out a statement they get criticised.

It's obvious that something serious went down, To be crystal clear I'm not claiming to be in possession of any of the facts.

Adults will put the pieces together for themselves. Draw your own conclusion.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:
I should know better, but Dakka's zest for playing amateur attorney is really bad today. Let's start with the thing that made me laugh out loud:

yukishiro1 wrote:
...this is exactly why the sort of detail-free defamation that FLG's statement was full of is so problematic.


Pretty much by definition, defamation requires a false statement, and a statement that is vague and lacking in details cannot be false. Saying a person "acted against our values" is an opinion, which is protected speech and not defamation. Like it or not, a person or company can say "this person is a bad guy, you shouldn't trust them," and there is really no legal claim to be made.


This is both untrue, and highly ironic given the comment about amateur attorneys. You can certainly defame someone with a vague statement. Whoever told you that defamation requires a specific allegation is the one you should be criticizing for making you look like the amateur attorney (as well as looking foolish for calling someone else out on an alleged misunderstanding of the law, only for it to be you who misunderstood). The distinction in defamation law is not between vague and specific, but between statements of fact and opinion.

"We fired him because he acted against our values" is not the defamatory part of the statement, nobody said it was.

It is the multiple places the statement insinuates that Pablo is not trustworthy and is a danger to their customers that is defamatory. The statement is worded in a weasely way, but the clear purpose is to communicate a factual assertion that Pablo is untrustworthy and a danger to customers, and that he was fired because of this. That isn't just an opinion, it's a factual allegation, just like "Pablo is corrupt" or "Pablo is a thief" is a factual allegation, whether it is vague as to specifics or not.

You cannot escape defamation liability just by being vague. If you write "I hear Bob is a bit loose with his morals when it comes to John's wife," you don't get to say "hey, I never actually said they were having an affair!" to defend yourself from a libel claim. Just like you don't get to say "We fired Pablo because we found out he was doing something that was a danger to our customers, we're warning our customers not to trust him if approached, breath of trust, trust, trust, trust, customer, customer, customer" and then say "well that was just an opinion, not a factual assertion that Pablo is untrustworthy and a danger to customers!"

But this isn't about whether Pablo could sue. Obviously he's not going to. This is about whether the statement is defamatory towards him in the way the term is commonly used, and it certainly is. Nobody reading that statement would not come away with the impression that FLG was attempting to do harm to his reputation (whether justified or not).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 22:01:05


 
   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





Pickled_egg wrote:

So I'm not really sure what you want them to do, they put out a statement you criticise them, they don't put out a statement they get criticised.


I don't know.

How about 'put out a professional statement that isn't defamatory'?


Pickled_egg wrote:

It's obvious that something serious went down


Is it? Serious according to who? We have no idea what happened. It could literally be anything from calling Reese a 'silly billy', to being caught planning genocide during company hours.

That's the point. They're asking for us to take their word that an individual is shady, and should be treated as X, based on nothing more than that same word. Some might call that an abuse of a position.

I've worked with some individuals who were fired for some very serious reasons indeed. One in particular, exceedingly so. Still at no point, did the company feel it necessary to get the rest of the industry or the customer base, publicly involved.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:57:31


 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

Frankly it seems like you're primed to view any statement as defamatory just because the other guy has not commented.

I don't like FLG, but I see no issues with what they've done especially in light of them being badgered over things.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Re-reading the statement by FLG, it is actually interest how carefully worded it was. It avoids even the slightest hint of statement about his actions. It says merely that he "behaved in a manner not in keeping with our values" which is 100% a statement of opinion, and could reflect anything from a sharply worded email to criminal activity. It talks about a break of trust, but trust is a unilateral emotion, and thus also essentially an opinion.

The more I think about it, the more this was a very well thought out statement, in that it stated that he was dismissed for cause, but gave zero suggestion what that cause was.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

Also let people know that he was no longer affiliated with them, in case he opted to try to shop some ideas out there as though he had their backing.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 Polonius wrote:
Re-reading the statement by FLG, it is actually interest how carefully worded it was. It avoids even the slightest hint of statement about his actions. It says merely that he "behaved in a manner not in keeping with our values" which is 100% a statement of opinion, and could reflect anything from a sharply worded email to criminal activity. It talks about a break of trust, but trust is a unilateral emotion, and thus also essentially an opinion.

The more I think about it, the more this was a very well thought out statement, in that it stated that he was dismissed for cause, but gave zero suggestion what that cause was.


In this day and age they probably got legal advice on the wording. I would if I was running a company.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly it seems like you're primed to view any statement as defamatory just because the other guy has not commented.


If they had just said "Pablo no longer is employed by us, please keep in mind in any future dealings with him that he does not represent us and is not endorsed by us" nobody would be talking about it, other than to say that "wow, they must really have fallen out."

Please don't make accusations of bad faith (i.e. you would have done X anyway, you said Y but you don't really mean it, etc), they destroy any potential for discussion.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

The problem is, "serious" could mean anything.

Maybe Pablo slept with Reese's sister. That'd torpedo a friendship pretty quick. But it's not as serious as theft

It's quite clear what the criticism of FLG's statement is about. It's sitting on the fence between not saying anything and actually giving the details. It implies some heinous act and invites further specllulation, without actually giving any details.
If they had come down on either side of the fence; giving details or not implying anything, it would be a much better statement and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

They handled better at first, by not giving out details. They could easily have kept that line.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

yukishiro1 wrote:
This is both untrue, and highly ironic given the comment about amateur attorneys. You can certainly defame someone with a vague statement. Whoever told you that defamation requires a specific allegation is the one you should be criticizing for making you look like the amateur attorney (as well as looking foolish for calling someone else out on an alleged misunderstanding of the law, only for it to be you who misunderstood). The distinction in defamation law is not between vague and specific, but between statements of fact and opinion.

"We fired him because he acted against our values" is not the defamatory part of the statement, nobody said it was.


okay. Yes, I spoke a bit loosely, but since providing zero details about conduct makes it very easy to say it was opinion.

It is the multiple places the statement insinuates that Pablo is not trustworthy and is a danger to their customers that is defamatory. The statement is worded in a weasely way, but the clear purpose is to communicate a factual assertion that Pablo is untrustworthy and a danger to customers, and that he was fired because of this. That isn't just an opinion, it's a factual allegation, just like "Pablo is corrupt" or "Pablo is a thief" is a factual allegation, whether it is vague as to specifics or not.


They didn't say he was untrustworthy or a danger to their customers. If you read it closely, they avoid both statements. They said "his breach of our trust left us with no alternative but to dismiss him." To prove this statement was true, they would simply need to find one way they trusted him, and he did not fully meet their expectations. This is a trivial statement to prove true. They also stated that no customers were harmed, but simply that they want to "continue to protect our customers."

You cannot escape defamation liability just by being vague. If you write "I hear Bob is a bit loose with his morals when it comes to John's wife," you don't get to say "hey, I never actually said they were having an affair!" to defend yourself from a libel claim. Just like you don't get to say "We fired Pablo because we found out he was doing something that was a danger to our customers, we're warning our customers not to trust him if approached, breath of trust, trust, trust, trust, customer, customer, customer" and then say "well that was just an opinion, not a factual assertion that Pablo is untrustworthy and a danger to customers!"


If their statement was what you wrote, sure, that's vague but also clearly implies specific enough wrong doing to be a statement of fact. Saying "he behaved in a way we did not approve, and we no longer trust him" are going to be very tough statments of fact to prove false.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 21:59:55


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 StrayIight wrote:
Pickled_egg wrote:

So I'm not really sure what you want them to do, they put out a statement you criticise them, they don't put out a statement they get criticised.


I don't know.

How about 'put out a professional statement that isn't defamatory'?


Pickled_egg wrote:

It's obvious that something serious went down


Is it? Serious according to who? We have no idea what happened. It could literally be anything from calling Reese a 'silly billy', to being caught planning genocide during company hours.

That's the point. They're asking for us to take their word that an individual is shady, and should be treated as X, based on nothing more than that same word.




As I said I'm no more in possession of the facts than you are. But they knew the guy for at least a decade, he was their friend. I find it highly unlikely that they would sack him over something as insignificant as a few heated words.

Maybe that's the way they roll, but I doubt it somehow.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Pickled_egg wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Re-reading the statement by FLG, it is actually interest how carefully worded it was. It avoids even the slightest hint of statement about his actions. It says merely that he "behaved in a manner not in keeping with our values" which is 100% a statement of opinion, and could reflect anything from a sharply worded email to criminal activity. It talks about a break of trust, but trust is a unilateral emotion, and thus also essentially an opinion.

The more I think about it, the more this was a very well thought out statement, in that it stated that he was dismissed for cause, but gave zero suggestion what that cause was.


In this day and age they probably got legal advice on the wording. I would if I was running a company.


If they did, they probably didn't follow it. Very few lawyers are going to advise putting out a statement like that.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:

They didn't say he was untrustworthy or a danger to their customers. If you read it closely, they avoid both statements. They said "his breach of our trust left us with no alternative but to dismiss him." To prove this statement was true, they would simply need to find one way they trusted him, and he did not fully meet their expectations. This is a trivial statement to prove true. They also stated that no customers were harmed, but simply that they want to "continue to protect our customers."


That's not all they said. The point is that you can't avoid defamation liability by just saying you let the reader fill in the blanks to reach the defamatory conclusion. The question is what a reasonable reader would make of the statement in question. Here they said:

While none of our customers were affected by Pablo’s actions, his breach of our trust left us with no alternative but to dismiss him. His actions were such that this was the safest way to limit the damage to our company and to continue to protect our customers.

Normally, we wouldn’t be writing about this sort of thing, it’s a messy business and not our usual brand of tabletop fun. But we care a lot about this community, and with Pablo reaching out to some of you, we felt a responsibility to make it clear he was now acting on his own behalf and was in no way affiliated with Frontline Gaming.

We wanted to warn you that any goods or services he offers up in the future, are independent from us and undertaken at your own risk.


I highlighted the bits that, taken together, certainly amount to leaving the reader with the factual impression that Pablo did something that threatened both FLG and its customers, and that he is a danger to anyone he approaches in a business context.

Again, I'm not saying I'd sue over it if I was him (even if it is 100% false and made-up). Actually suing over defamation is almost always a fool's errand. But it is certainly a defamatory statement in the way the term is commonly used.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 22:11:12


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: