'The Quartering' Physically assaulted at GENCON 2018

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.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Grot 6 wrote:
He wasn't storming Poland here. It isn't about "Nazi's"

Well, you can thank PC Brigade Snowflake Warrior JohnWangDD for putting Nazis into the discussion. And putting me into it too. Behind my back. So brave of him!
Noone else was speaking about Nazis and noone compared the guy whose name I can't be bothered to copy-paste to a Nazi, or advocated for him to be punched repeatedly in the face.

**Peregrine**

Zywus wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if you have a 4-day pass at Gencon, and do something significantly inflammatory and/or illegal during your stay, they'd feel entitled to refuse you entry for the rest of the days with reference to the TOS.

They're entitled to refuse you entry for nearly anything they want, outside of discrimination against protected classes. The TOS on this subject is merely a list of things that will get you banned, not a guarantee that anything not covered by the TOS is acceptable.

And, again, define "during your stay". How far away is far enough that the TOS no longer applies? If someone punches their cheating ex at the airport while waiting to board a flight to use their 4-day pass is this considered "during your stay"? What if the ex gets punched in a bar somewhere else in the city during those four days?

**Neronoxx**

Zywus wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Zywus wrote:
https://www.gencon.com/attend/terms_of_service

I agree to conduct myself, and any minors under my supervision, in a safe, responsible, non-disruptive, and lawful manner while attending the Convention,
(emphasis added)
Whether the TOS is applicable comes down to if "while attending" only covers physically residing on the Con premises. I find that an unreasonable interpretation for rasons explained in an above post. If you disagree, then you think I'm wrong. I might be in the minority on this and then so be it, I guess.

Of course "while attending" only covers being on the convention premises (or at least in very close proximity). Anything else quickly becomes excessively broad, to the point that any actions involving a person who at any point attends (or even may attend) the convention becomes relevant. See the "punching a cheater in the face at the airport" example. Do you really want something like that to be covered by the TOS?

I'm pretty sure that if you have a 4-day pass at Gencon, and do something significantly inflammatory and/or illegal during your stay, they'd feel entitled to refuse you entry for the rest of the days with reference to the TOS.

No they wouldn't because it's not the cons job to play babysitter in what is probably either a stunt or two idiots getting into a fight.

First rule of successfully running events; dont throw yourself into drama that doesn't concern you.
Your welcome.

**Daedleh**

totalfailure wrote:
Typical Dakka left wing echo chamber in action.
You know what? Hambly is a jerk. But when you start advocating violence as a solution to jerks, you're just as much a part of the problem. And that you can't see that is the truly frightening part.

This is a strawman.

No-one has advocated violence towards jerks (asides Nazi's). No-one has advocated violence towards Hambly.

What people have said is that they're sceptical of the situation. Hambly is a jerk, as you note, and his shtick seems to revolve around victimhood. Deliberately antagonising someone with the intent of starting a fight so that he could play the victim card plays right into his MO.

**Kanluwen**

Formosa wrote:
Guy is a douche but if it comes out that he was actually attacked for expressing his opinion... not on, not one bit, especially as the US has freedom of speech as part of its constitution.

1) As mentioned, freedom of speech only applies to the government censoring your speech.
2) "Fighting words" is a valid legal doctrine in some areas of the US, where certain statements can be reasonably expected to result in this kind of outcome--and while it doesn't absolve the attacker, it does mitigate the circumstances significantly when it comes to the person who was attacked tries to claim damages or other things of that nature.

**Grot 6**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Grot 6 wrote:
He wasn't storming Poland here. It isn't about "Nazi's"

Well, you can thank Special PC Snowflake Warrior JohnWangDD for putting Nazis into the discussion. And me. Behind my back. So brave of him!

Lets keep this in perspective here... Seriously. You guys are going to keep going on and on... for This and get a time out for a TFG guy? Seriously?

Take a step back to your rings, THIS isn't the sword you want to fall on.

If Johnny there is being a mutt, you guys can take that off thread and go at in in message between yourselves. This is genuine nonissue.

**Zywus**

The whole discussion about people attempting to justify violence against their political opponents by naming them nazis is probably not fruitful.

Although, if we ever get clarity in this incident, I will not be at the very least surprised if this turns out to be the exact motive and justification of the guy attacking the Quartering. Once you have your justification ready and some frustrations to take out on the world, the criteria of who's a nazi seems to get more and more lax.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Grot 6 wrote:
THIS isn't the sword you want to fall on.

If you think "Reference to Captain America, the Wolfenstein video games and Inglorious Basterds are now controversial because they might hurt the feelings of Nazi", or whatever John point about my avatar was, as something that doesn't really matter, well it does to me. Because clearly I don't want to have to play round 2 where they try to exterminate me after trying to exterminate my grand-mother. Sure I'm going to take it personal and make a big deal out of it.
Now if people would just drop the Nazi topic and focus on the troll that got punched instead I'll gladly let the subject to rest. Already said what I had to say.

**Peregrine**

Zywus wrote:
The whole discussion about people attempting to justify violence against their political opponents by naming them nazis is probably not fruitful.

Nor is trying to present it as "calling them Nazis" when we're talking about people literally parading around with Nazi flags, praising Hitler, and demanding white supremacist policies.

**Formosa**

Peregrine wrote:
totalfailure wrote:
Typical Dakka left wing echo chamber in action.
You know what? Hambly is a jerk. But when you start advocating violence as a solution to jerks, you're just as much a part of the problem. And that you can't see that is the truly frightening part.

Who is advocating violence against him for being a jerk? I've seen several people, myself included, not being surprised that he got punched (much in the same way that someone who cheats on their partner shouldn't be surprised to get a punch in return) but nobody is saying that we should punch him. "Saw that one coming" is not the same thing as "good job, we should give you a medal". But I suppose when you start off with "left-wing echo chamber" as the premise of your comment we know you're not dealing with reality.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:
especially as the US has freedom of speech as part of its constitution.

Freedom of speech is about government censorship, not the actions of private citizens. Whatever the details of the situation may be or your opinions on them this is not a free speech issue.

If it’s true he attacked him over his you tube videos, in an attempt to intimidate him to stop, that is censorship through threat of violence, so an attempt to limit his freedom of speech.

So yes, violent acts or threats of violence to stop someone expressing their opinions is a freedom of speech issue, but not exclusively and arguably less important that the violent act itself.

But that all depends on the intent of the attacker and reason behind the attack.

**Zywus**

Peregrine wrote:
Zywus wrote:
The whole discussion about people attempting to justify violence against their political opponents by naming them nazis is probably not fruitful.

Nor is trying to present it as "calling them Nazis" when we're talking about people literally parading around with Nazi flags, praising Hitler, and demanding white supremacist policies.

The point I'm making is that while people parading with nazi flags and praising Hitler are rightly being called nazis, basically anyone else can be too. And violence against them justified. Like the person featured in this thread; the Quartering.

http://boundingintocomics.com/2018/08/03/nerdist-producer-promotes-and-encourages-violence-in-wake-of-attack-on-jeremy-hambly/

**Formosa**

totalfailure wrote:
Typical Dakka left wing echo chamber in action.
You know what? Hambly is a jerk. But when you start advocating violence as a solution to jerks, you're just as much a part of the problem. And that you can't see that is the truly frightening part.

Dakka is not an echo chamber, there are a couple of far lefties on here but most of us are pretty chilled, any time the far righties turn up or the far lefties start spouting the usual, they don’t get echo chambers back, they get their bigoted ideas exposed for the stupidity that it is.

Nobody likes the alt right here, nobody likes the SJWs either, no echo chambers to be found on dakka.

That’s enough off topic for me there I think.

**Kanluwen**

Formosa wrote:

If it’s true he attacked him over his you tube videos, in an attempt to intimidate him to stop, that is censorship through threat of violence, so an attempt to limit his freedom of speech.

So yes, violent acts or threats of violence to stop someone expressing their opinions is a freedom of speech issue, but not exclusively and arguably less important that the violent act itself.

But that all depends on the intent of the attacker and reason behind the attack.

First Amendment does not realistically apply here. You have zero idea of what you speak.

**RiTides**

This thread has gotten out of hand!

I'm going to lock this up, and perhaps if more details emerge we can re-open it or start a new one. But for now, let's let things cool off a bit...