The Quartering Dude was allegedly 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.

**Sarouan**

For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

**Manchu**

Try to keep it on topic folks. Many thanks!

**Formosa**

Sarouan wrote:
For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Has it been confirmed yet that the attack was politically motivated?

**Yodhrin**

Formosa wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Has it been confirmed yet that the attack was politically motivated?

As far as I've seen it's not even been confirmed anything actually happened, just the accusation. Has anyone not related to this chump or the other guy come forward yet? Have the police confirmed they've received a complaint?

**Formosa**

Yodhrin wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Has it been confirmed yet that the attack was politically motivated?

As far as I've seen it's not even been confirmed anything actually happened, just the accusation. Has anyone not related to this chump or the other guy come forward yet? Have the police confirmed they've received a complaint?

Good point

**cuda1179**

He has posted pictures of his police complaint and officer contact info. Necessary things blacked-out for privacy reasons.

**Munster**

It's the standard paradox, the only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance... as the latter will eventually lead to the end of a tolerant society

**Galas**

I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

Is a bar. I have seen people get punched unconscious in a bar for a football discussion, a discussion of who pornstar has the biggest tits, or for all kind of political discussions.
Nobody is trying to "repress" the right of free speech of the oponent, at least not in a systematical and reasonable way, they just get angry and fight. The bar-culture is toxic and people that goes there get what they are looking for.

**Sarouan**

cuda1179 wrote:
He has posted pictures of his police complaint and officer contact info. Necessary things blacked-out for privacy reasons.

Which proves nothing that everything he claimed afterwards in his videos actually really happened.

A police complaint only shows the story from the complainer's point of view.

**cuda1179**

Sarouan wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
He has posted pictures of his police complaint and officer contact info. Necessary things blacked-out for privacy reasons.

Which proves nothing that everything he claimed afterwards in his videos actually really happened.

A police complaint only shows the story from the complainer's point of view.

I never said it was anything more than that. I was simply responding to a question on if a police report had been filed.

**soundwave591**

cuda1179 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

now yours?

edit: sorry, I replied on previous page before seeing mods comment

**cuda1179**

soundwave591 wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

now yours?

I sent a PM to Disciple of Fate with my citations, as a MOD asked us to remain on topic. That being said, I'll violate that this one time just to appease you. Also, I'll include why I think he was misquoting his own source.

I didn't want to clog up the Off Topic forum with a post that was off-topic. Anyway, you cited an article, and I'd love to discuss it further with you. I did find the article quite informative, thanks for sharing.

However, I did have some problems with what they classified as "public" developments. Things included in this were Public developments (which I agree should count), but they also included all work done by private industry that was even minorly funded by the public, or even work not funded by the public, but referenced material previously publicly funded. That's a bit misleading.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support having systematic research grants for our scientists and this does help spawn innovation in areas that aren't traditionally "profitable".

https://www.policymed.com/2011/02/nejm-the-private-sector-discoveries-account-for-79-90-of-pharmaceutical-products.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2015/05/19/debunking-the-five-big-myths-about-big-pharma/#61c83bf747bc

**Disciple of Fate**

soundwave591 wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

now yours?

We were told to drop it, lets in the favor of the thread. We've taken it to PM.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I see that Peregrine's "Punch a Nazi" philosophy is bearing fruit. A Nazi being anyone to the Right of Karl Marx...

Well done Peregrine. You're getting the society you wished for, where violence as a response to words is becoming normalized.

Don't expect sympathy when its YOU that is on the on the receiving end of that violence.

Galas wrote:
I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

You don't actually have to be a douche bag. You just have to be labelled a douche bag.

The truth of the accusation is superfluous to requirements.

**cuda1179**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I see that Peregrine's "Punch a Nazi" philosophy is bearing fruit. A Nazi being anyone to the Right of Karl Marx...

Well done Peregrine. You're getting the society you wished for, where violence as a response to words is becoming normalized.

Don't expect sympathy when its YOU that is on the on the receiving end of that violence.

Galas wrote:
I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

You don't actually have to be a douche bag. You just have to be labelled a douche bag.

The truth of the accusation is superfluous to requirements.

I also find it quite ironic that the only acceptable definition of "Fascist" seems to be one found in an "Intro to Political History 101" textbook, yet an all-encompassing vast net is used for the definition of "Nazi" when asked for any proof...… Proof that has yet to appear in any shape or form.

**Galas**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Galas wrote:
I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

You don't actually have to be a douche bag. You just have to be labelled a douche bag.

The truth of the accusation is superfluous to requirements.

Yeah thats how it works. Being a douche bag is not an objetive value added to your life. People consider you a douche bag or not based in their subjetive opinion of you and your actions. I'm not talking about only this case, of course. But 15 years ago when something like this happened it would have been received with "Meh, two guys into a bar fighting because they had a disagrement" and not "Theres a conspirancy! They want to repress all form of political expresion that doesn't fit their world view!"

Like... what kind of political statements that are relevant can you make on a bar, at night? The only political discussion you can have in a context like that is the typical useless one that you could have with your friends drinking a beer, talking about how you would fix the world.

**Peregrine**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I see that Peregrine's "Punch a Nazi" philosophy is bearing fruit. A Nazi being anyone to the Right of Karl Marx...

Well done Peregrine. You're getting the society you wished for, where violence as a response to words is becoming normalized.

Don't expect sympathy when its YOU that is on the on the receiving end of that violence.

Wow, straw man much? Hambly is not a Nazi, and is not the target I have advocated violence against. Nor is anyone to the right of Marx a Nazi, outside of bizarre right-wing straw man attempts. This, as far as we can tell, is not "the world I wished for", it's just a drunk

in a bar getting punched by another drunk

. If the drunk

in question wasn't a social media attention whore we would never have heard of any of this. Don't make more out of it than it actually is.

cuda1179 wrote:
I also find it quite ironic that the only acceptable definition of "Fascist" seems to be one found in an "Intro to Political History 101" textbook, yet an all-encompassing vast net is used for the definition of "Nazi" when asked for any proof...… Proof that has yet to appear in any shape or form.

Yep, another dishonest post. I have not used an "all-encompassing vast net" to define Nazis. In fact, I have made explicit statements on multiple occasions that I'm talking about actual Nazis: the people parading around with Nazi flags, praising Hitler and his genocide, and advocating violence against the lesser races to create an all-white society. The only people talking about a broader definition of Nazis are the people dishonestly attempting to argue that I'm in favor of violence against anyone I disagree with, instead of in self defense against the most evil group of murderers in history.

And yes, the definition of fascism I have argued for is correct. There is a difference between fascism and authoritarianism, and using one term when you mean the other is not correct. Sorry if that is inconvenient for certain people and their politically-motivated desire to label their enemies "fascist" even when the term doesn't apply.

**cuda1179**

Peregrine wrote:
[yes, the definition of fascism I have argued for is correct. There is a difference between fascism and authoritarianism, and using one term when you mean the other is not correct. Sorry if that is inconvenient for certain people and their politically-motivated desire to label their enemies "fascist" even when the term doesn't apply.

Your definition of Fascist is correct, but not all encompassing. It does have broader, and also correct, meanings as well. Using "exactisms" would be equally douchey if I said you were wrong about Nazis because there is a difference racist Hitler fanboys and actual card carrying members of the National Socialist Party (a particular distinction that was actually made in the 1940's).

Are Hambly's fans 100% made up of squeaky clean objectively nice people? No, they aren't. I'm sure there is a subsect of them that are total animals. However, insinuations that those are a major faction of his fanbase, and that he actively panders to them, is at best disingenuous.

I'll agree with you that if Hambly wasn't a pseudo internet celebrity we would likely not have heard about this. Then again, that's true of pretty much every action that happens to unknown people. Also, if he wasn't well-known the assault itself likely wouldn't have happened.

**Sarouan**

To be honest, fascim has nothing to do in this case so far. It looks more like a youtuber thought it was a good opportunity to catch some attention for his videos and having move views on his channel by claiming he was censored by GenCon, and some guys on the Extreme Right were more than happy to take his case as "proof" of the wrong doing/conspiracy of the Left/SJW.

There are indeed people who do provoke others so that they get assaulted and can act as the victim for their own reasons (political, money, and so on). Here, we have only one side of the story and to be honest, there seems to be quite a lot of loopholes. However, I don't see what the "Punch a Nazy" or fascism has to do here at all, nor claiming that the guy deserved to be punched in the face because of what he says on his videos. We just don't know what really happened, that's all.

**cuda1179**

Sarouan wrote:
. However, I don't see what the "Punch a Nazy" or fascism has to do here at all, nor claiming that the guy deserved to be punched in the face because of what he says on his videos. We just don't know what really happened, that's all.

The assaulter was wearing a "Punch a Nazi" t-shirt. Apparently he has voiced this opinion before. Was this the motivation for this incident? I don't know, but that in and of itself is enough to make one wonder.

**Crimson Devil**

You're assuming a lot from a shirt. Maybe his "punch an donkey-cave" t-shirt was in the washer.

**ChargerIIC**

Do we have any details on this 'alleged assault' or has the whole thing turned out to be a non-story? I just see a bunch of Antifa vs Proud Boys crap in this thread but can't find an actual update on if the fighter actually occurred, what started it, and what the circumstances were.

**Kilkrazy**

This all seems rather trivial and tedious.

Aren't there more important and interesting things to worry about than whether two drunk wargamers have a punch-up in a bar?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

**DrGiggles**

Peregrine wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Let's all just chill the F out here.

Nice dodge there, making ridiculous comparisons and demonstrating that you don't know what "fascism" means and then hiding behind "let's all chill the F out" when called on it.

Magic cards are crap quality compared to what they used to be. WOTC did ban people that didn't technically violate their TOS. Removing any kind of gender pronoun from Magic cards is a bit eyerolly. WOTC stating they want to monitor your social media does seem a bit 1984. Having Anita Sarkesian as a guest speaker at comicon was, at best, a questionable decision.

MTG cards are poor quality? It's funny, but from what I've heard the most recent set got great reviews and a lot of the old stuff was pretty bad. There might be a valid argument about product quality, but his videos aren't calm and rational discussion of game design principles.

WOTC banning people is not an issue. AFAIK all of the cases that were mentioned were clear TFG behavior and people trying to hide behind the technicality that the TOS didn't explicitly ban their TFG behavior. Zero sympathy there.

Removing gender pronouns is just basic writing clarity. Using "their" instead of the awkward "his or her" saves space and sounds a lot more natural. The only reason to use "his or her" is the popular misconception by elementary school writing teachers that they/their as singular pronouns for a person of unknown/unstated gender is incorrect, when in reality it's the normal way people speak with hundreds of years of precedent behind it. Any benefit to non-binary people who feel excluded by binary male/female pronouns is a nice side effect, but even if that wasn't an issue at all it would still be the right thing to do.

Monitoring social media sounds 1984ish, but what are we really talking about here? Watching for stuff like the facebook group (which got people banned) where TFGs were rating female pro tour players on how hot they were and sharing offensive memes? No problem there, disruptive people are still a concern even if they're only being disruptive and TFGish on social media. Trying to monitor and ban people for stuff that isn't TFG behavior or harmful to the game? Not ok, but I'd like to see some evidence that WOTC is doing this.

Won't disagree with you on Anita Sarkeesian. She gets way more hate than she deserves, but she isn't really saying anything new and there are better options.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
LOL, no. Communism is a totalitarian state, same as Nazism, except it murdered more people. I get that you're in love with Fat Kim, but you don't get to call Soviet and North Korean gulags and death camps and purges "implementation failures". If you're a Commie apologist, you're worse than a neo-Nazi, and I won't have any further part discussing anything with you. Buh-bye

Uh, no. That's just ignorance of history and what communism actually means.

Communism is a proposed economic system involving collective ownership of capital. Violence is not an inherent part of it, communists would be perfectly happy if it was implemented through democratic vote and passing the appropriate laws. Communists are open to violent revolution, but only in the same way that republicans fought revolutions against the monarchy. The murders under Stalinism are not an inherent part of communism. They are the result of a murderous dictator who just happened to be communist, much like anti-communist dictators have murdered their perceived enemies. A typical communist is not going to look at a successful communist society with no gulags or murders and say "you know what we need is some mass murder".

Nazism is an ideology specifically dedicated to genocide. Exterminating the lesser races is its primary goal, an inherent part of the ideology that can not be separated from it. In fact, it is such an important goal of Nazism that the Nazis continued to divert increasing amounts of resources towards their genocide efforts even as they were losing the war, accepting a greater chance of defeat if it meant getting to kill more people. A typical Nazi would look at a hypothetical Nazi state where genocide is not occurring, wonder WTF is wrong with them, and demand to have more murders.

If you can't tell the difference between the two and why Nazism is far worse then it's a sad comment on your lack of morality.

You do realize that the Soviets were systematically killing off the Cossacks between 1918 and 1922 when Lenin was in power right? That wasn't to the same scale as what the Nazi's were doing but it was still a genocide no matter how you look at it. Don't get me wrong, Stalin's body count was much higher but saying that it only started with him is just not true. And when EVERY communist country so far has led it's leaders killing off or enslaving hundreds of thousands or millions of their own people you have to step back and acknowledge that the flaw might be with the system's ideologies and not with the specific leader.

**zedmeister**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

Has this Quartering fella ever denounced, attacked or targeted this other fella? Or, taking out the personalities involved: is chinning someone an acceptable response for gak talking or, dare I say, a difference of opinion?

**skyth**

Nothing in Communism calls for the systematic killing of people. That's what happens when you have dictators using 'Communism' to seize power.

Contrast with Nazi's who's doctrine does indeed call for the systematic killing of people.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

zedmeister wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

Has this Quartering fella ever denounced, attacked or targeted this other fella? Or, taking out the personalities involved: is chinning someone an acceptable response for gak talking or, dare I say, a difference of opinion?

He seems to be an Alt-Right Crybaby, opposed to women and change and anyone that’s not a whiny Alt-Right Crybaby. Think Alex Jones.

Provoke, get chinned. That’s entirely different from a mere difference of opinion.

Consider. You’re having a nice quiet drink, and someone starts having a go at you. This is someone confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. This is not some lefty glassing a Tory Voter in the pub, just because they vote Tory. This isn’t a heated political conversation. This is someone giving it The Big I Am, including baseless accusations of paedophila here and there, and someone playing a little chin music with a tu’penny one up his bracket.

It’s not a sustained beating. It’s someone taking a too expedient method to shut his yap.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

Has this Quartering fella ever denounced, attacked or targeted this other fella? Or, taking out the personalities involved: is chinning someone an acceptable response for gak talking or, dare I say, a difference of opinion?

He seems to be an Alt-Right Crybaby, opposed to women and change and anyone that’s not a whiny Alt-Right Crybaby. Think Alex Jones.

Provoke, get chinned. That’s entirely different from a mere difference of opinion.

Consider. You’re having a nice quiet drink, and someone starts having a go at you. This is someone confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. This is not some lefty glassing a Tory Voter in the pub, just because they vote Tory. This isn’t a heated political conversation. This is someone giving it The Big I Am, including baseless accusations of paedophila here and there, and someone playing a little chin music with a tu’penny one up his bracket.

It’s not a sustained beating. It’s someone taking a too expedient method to shut his yap.

You're a liar if you claim this is an accurate and honest description of the situation.

According to Hambly, he was approached by this guy who asked if he was The Quartering on Youtube. Then the guy assaulted him after confirming his identity.

This is not an ordinary bar fight in which someone was provoked in the heat of the moment by words spoken by the target of the assault. This was a pre-meditated targeted assault by someone who spotted a public figure who holds political views that he disagrees with. Hambly was not expressing those views at the bar, he was minding his own business.

His attacker took issue with things that Hambly has said on the internet, and sought him out in the real world.

By your logic, I'm well within my rights to seek you or Peregrine out in person and attempt to punch to punch your lights out for the things you're saying on Dakka Dakka.
Inciting, normalizing and celebrating illegal violence is a pretty douchebag thing to do IMO, no matter who the target is.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

A bar fight seemingly not caught on their CCTV.

No Police record of a report.

Not that I’m accusing the Alt-Right of being serial liars (actually, tricked you, I’m doing exactly that).

But there’s just no evidence to support that this even happened.