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.

Janthkin doesn't get money for being a mod...

rigeld2 wrote:
Janthkin doesn't get money for being a mod...

He is still a representative of this site. Money is not the only compensation one gets for doing something.

We're all representatives of this site.
In addition, he doesn't get to pick and choose who advertises.
You're ascribing potential malice where there isn't any.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Janthkin doesn't get money for being a mod...

He is still a representative of this site. Money is not the only compensation one gets for doing something.

I suppose there is the joy of having additional motives ascribed to my every action, regardless of whether those motives are valid or not....

It's been said before, and I'll say it again here - the owners/administrators of the site place NO restrictions on the moderators, as regards how we moderate topics, beyond enforcing the forum rules. Advertisers receive no particular consideration; I handle threads involving them exactly the same as threads involving other individuals.

What I dont get is why BF even issued a C&D and then just tried to settle the issue quietly before BOK filed the legal action.

As soon as something like this is started it is going to be very public and then frighten off some potential customers.

By issuing a C&D with onerous conditions BF seems to have shot themselves in the foot and escalated some crappy posting on a little forum that many of us would never have come into contact with.

What would BF have to gain from starting down this path?

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I dont get is why BF even issued a C&D and then just tried to settle the issue quietly before BOK filed the legal action

We don't know for certain what was done prior to sending the C&D. There are some suggestions earlier in the thread, though, that it wasn't the beginning of the conversation between the parties.

And let's keep armchair psychiatric diagnoses out of the conversation; they cannot possibly do anything but drive us off-topic.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
Battlefoam still took the first action.

The BoK article could have been ignored.
Instead, Battlefoam decided to send a C&D, which is overreacting, but easy to comply with.

Battlefoam eas the one to demand a takedown of the article, monetary restitution, an affidavit, and a C&D. That is what people are citing as the first metaphorical "shot". BoK simply filed a legal 'put-up-or-shut-up'.

BoK may have created this situation, but Battlefoam escalated it to the point of no return.

Look, you can spin this quite a few ways. BoK didn't have to post the article they did. They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article. They didn't have to file a declaratory judgment suit.

But my only point here is that it's useless to critique BF for being party to a lawsuit where they have nothing to gain; they didn't file the lawsuit, but they can't ignore it.

If I run my car into you and you sue me for it my actions are still the cause of the lawsuit even if you did not file the suit. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that BF did not cause this lawsuit to appear.

But I will rephrase my statement if it makes you more comfortable. "What has BattleFoam to gain from such a hostile C&D letter?" That article was all but forgotten, many had no clue that it even existed. I had no idea that Romeo had blown up on infinity players or had podcasts rants of ill repute. So instead of shutting down criticism all that has been accomplished is dragging out his own dirty laundry to be examined. Especially after watching all the backlash for GWS's C&D's how could one think this was a good idea?

I would laugh if my own inactive blog was to be given an C&D like that, mine is incorporated sue it and MI40k goes bankrupt, I think there's 40 bucks in the business account.

And even when you win a case you really don't "win" god knows I've taken enough non payers to court and all you end up with is a judgment that you'll never see a dime of anyways.

How does one set about calculating damages in this typoe of case? When a C&D is issued and the wider community becomes aware of the contents of the original issue and decides not to deal with Romeo who gets the blame for that?

How do you calculate monetary damages? I am curious as to what if the BOK specific claims was judged wrong in the examples given but then Romeo's previous reputation was judged true would there be any losses?

 fullheadofhair wrote:
How does one set about calculating damages in this typoe of case? When a C&D is issued and the wider community becomes aware of the contents of the original issue and decides not to deal with Romeo who gets the blame for that?

How do you calculate monetary damages? I am curious as to what if the BOK specific claims was judged wrong in the examples given but then Romeo's previous reputation was judged true would there be any losses?

Damages are a tricky and technical subject and it is going to vary widely based on the jurisdiction. Most of the time the plaintiff has the burden of proving they suffered damage on top of showing they were defamed. Sometimes that will be reversed by statute or case law.

Very very generally speaking you have:

1) Special Damages / Actual Damages - these would be business losses, a contract falling through due to the posting, a huge dip in sales etc.. A little bit more objective than say hurt feelings.

2) General Damages - damage to reputation, hurt feelings, etc.. (very hard to calculate, very subjective).

3) Punitive Damages - damages the court awards due to outrage at the defendants conduct over and above everything else. Much rarer.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Janthkin doesn't get money for being a mod...

He is still a representative of this site. Money is not the only compensation one gets for doing something.

Do you know how many of us are DCMs? We actually hand over money to DakkaDakka each year for three letters under our name and a tiny subforum.

Do you know how many of us "paying customers" (if we might be considered that) get warnings and suspensions form mods?

I got a few of them, one of them from Janthkin even .

Trust me, handing money over to Yakface doesn't influence moderation one single bit.

A bit of action today:

Mr. Hayden has filed a motion to strike Battle Foam's cross complaint, supported by a host of declarations. It's being brought via 425.16 so it's the anti-SLAPP motion we were expecting. (http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/statutes/c-c-p-section-425-16/)

MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS COMPLAINT CROSS COMPLAINT FILED 05/08/2013 OF BATTLE FOAM LLC FILED BY NICOLAS HAYDEN, REPRESENTED BY D. GILL SPERLEIN

Declarations from:

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS HAYDEN FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF CARL TUTTLE FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF LARRY VELA FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HEREIN,...

DECLARATION OF CHANDLER LEE FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HERIEN...

DECLARATION OF JON WOLF FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HEREIN...

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BRANDT FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I SATE HEREIN...

DECLARATION OF LAURA M TUCKER FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF NICOLAS HAYDENS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF ROBERT BAER FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

The hearing is currently set for after Mr. Filips forum non conveniens and no jurisdiction motions:

07/08/2013 9:00 AM DEPT. 31 HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE (CROS COMPLAINT) UNDER CCP 425.16 FILED BY NICOLAS HAYDEN

That's Mvbrandt from Nova and Bigred from BOLS isn't it?

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
That's Mvbrandt from Nova and Bigred from BOLS isn't it?

And Carl is from Indepedent Characters, J. Wolf also from BOLS, R. Baer from Spikey Bits, and Chandler Lee is from Feast of Blades.

So are these in effect witnesses to the items that Romeo says are false and slanderous?





Edited after googling Chandler Lee

Wow, pretty much a 'who's who' of the TO's and interwebs personalities.

FYI, LAURA M TUCKER is, I believe the legal clerk for Randazza's Law firm, so I don't think it's the list of people against TT.

Not sure what this is all about.

Marcus Scipio wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
That's Mvbrandt from Nova and Bigred from BOLS isn't it?

So are these in effect witnesses to the items that Romeo says are false and slanderous?

1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.

(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

Looking at the statute, there are two things going on:

First a defendant has to show that their speech is covered by the section (constitutionally protected and connected to public interest).

If that hurdle is met, then the plaintiff has to show that there is a probability they will prevail. If the plaintiff can't show a probability they will prevail lawsuit is dead and a SLAPP-back costs motion might be brought.

So the affidavits could be going to either of those two issues (public interest or undermining a defamation claim / establishing a defence). Could be as simple as someone saying "Battle Foam is sort of famous in our community."

We'd know for sure if some friendly Californian went to the court house and photocopied the records...


I'm wondering if they can get this motion hearing re-scheduled to before the motion on forum non-conveniens (one of the attempts to move the case to Arizona).

czakk wrote:

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS HAYDEN FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF CARL TUTTLE FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF LARRY VELA FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HEREIN,...

DECLARATION OF CHANDLER LEE FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HERIEN...

DECLARATION OF JON WOLF FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HEREIN...

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BRANDT FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I SATE HEREIN...

DECLARATION OF LAURA M TUCKER FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF NICOLAS HAYDENS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF ROBERT BAER FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

Re Marcus Scipio, in theory yes.

we know Carl is from IC podcast.
BigRed and JWolf of Bols,
MVBrandT- Nova head
Duke/Chandler- Feast of Blades Head
Spikey Bits- Vendor at Most big US cons.
Laura Tucker is the only name i dont recognize.

the way i can see these people all connected to this is they all deal with some form of major US cons, whether they are a sponsor, vendor, or are part of council of operations for them. They all possibly deal with Romeo directly, looking for prize support/sponsorship. From what we've gathered from those that had seen BoK post, there was mention of lack of commitment or failure to produce agreed upon prize support for the proper returns. (forgive me if that is wrong- I believe I read that in this thread or the previous locked one) Now that being said, we know little of the actual agreements of which prize support or sponsorship is given.

See my above post for Laura Tucker identity (assumed).

bginer wrote:
See my above post for Laura Tucker identity (assumed).

Like bginer said, she's a law student working for Randazza. Pretty good gig given today's market for young lawyers.

-- Edit --

Looks like she just graduated in May, so presumably she'll be a full lawyer once she passes and gets called to the bar.

bginer wrote:
Wow, pretty much a 'who's who' of the TO's and interwebs personalities.

Agreed. Quite the representation of community leaders there. I'm particularly curious as to the Spikey Bits' testimony, given that they're another vendor too.

I was discussing the case with a friend who really wanted to read the original article. Decided to give the wayback machine another try, and in the course of my playing around this morning found this...

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2013/03/07/meat-meta-bad-battlefoam-practices/

Having looked for it in the past I can confirm it was gone when the hubbub started.

In any event, one question and one comment.

Question - if this is back out there does this mean the two sides have come to some resolution?

Comment - I think I know what the old sworn depositions are about now... The who's who of tourny organizers corresponds to the listing of tournaments screwed over by battlefoam in the article.

Wow, you're right it's back up. Thanks for the memory refresh. There's a lot in there that I forgot about and probably wouldn't have reread without this case happening. Streisand effect anyone?

BoK reposting this *could* mean a resolution has been reached, but more likely it means they took the article down until they got all their ducks in a row (with the above filings), and now put it back up. I'm assuming they wouldn't want to go into the hearings (on Free Speech) with it down, because it could look like an admission of guilt. That's my non-legal-minded guess of course.

So today is the first time I've had a chance to read the BoK article as well and I have a question. Romeo has said several times that one of his issues with the BoK article was that it (falsely according to Romeo) accused him of intimidating/threatening people. After having read the article, I didn't see anything like that. Was I looking right at it and just missing it or is it really not there?

It's in the Infinity section. Here is a quote from the article:

"In response Romeo when on (now deleted flame war) the forum threatening to come out and beat the [profanity] out certain board members for their comments."

Ah. Thanks. I did miss that.

Marcus Scipio wrote: Comment - I think I know what the old sworn depositions are about now... The who's who of tourny organizers corresponds to the listing of tournaments screwed over by battlefoam in the article.

This is what I wondered, and I think you might be right.

Tycho wrote:
So today is the first time I've had a chance to read the BoK article as well and I have a question. Romeo has said several times that one of his issues with the BoK article was that it (falsely according to Romeo) accused him of intimidating/threatening people. After having read the article, I didn't see anything like that. Was I looking right at it and just missing it or is it really not there?

Finally, Romeo went psychotic tirade on the Infinity forums.
It all started when Romeo complained about being gakky at Infinity on 40k Radio.
That elicited the Corvus Belli forums members to troll Romeo trash talking.
In response Romeo when on (now deleted flame war) the forum threatening to come out and beat the gak out certain board members for their comments.

carboncopy wrote:


BoK reposting this *could* mean a resolution has been reached, but more likely it means they took the article down until they got all their ducks in a row (with the above filings), and now put it back up. I'm assuming they wouldn't want to go into the hearings (on Free Speech) with it down, because it could look like an admission of guilt. That's my non-legal-minded guess of course.

Appreciate the response, guess I was too hasty in hoping some settlement had been reached. But am also hoping one our legal minded folks would also weigh in...

That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.

That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.

I was also surprised. It wasn't nearly as inflamatory (imo anyway) as the super aggressive C&D made it out to be. In trying to put myself in Romeo's shoes, I guess I can see where he could get upset about the prize support issues (assuming BoK really does have it wrong - we have no way of really knowing), but even that seems like it could have been much more easily handled by a simple email/IM/blog post ...

EDIT:

In fairness it's possible Romeo DID try to handle it without lawyers. Again, we have no way of knowing.

Tycho wrote:

That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.

I was also surprised. It wasn't nearly as inflamatory (imo anyway) as the super aggressive C&D made it out to be. In trying to put myself in Romeo's shoes, I guess I can see where he could get upset about the prize support issues (assuming BoK really does have it wrong - we have no way of really knowing), but even that seems like it could have been much more easily handled by a simple email/IM/blog post ...

EDIT:

In fairness it's possible Romeo DID try to handle it without lawyers. Again, we have no way of knowing.

I think it's more of because people are inclined to listen to a blog post on a reputable, well-known (within the community, that is) site such as BoK, as opposed to a forum post, despite the fact that both of them are merely opinion pieces. A blog post on such a site would appear to be "semi-official" and have a decent amount of truth within it (although whether this is actually the case is a completely different story), whereas forums can sometimes be full of trash talk. It's an image/appearance thing.