bensweeneyonbass's Feed

bensweeneyonbass
10-14-2021 at 03:23 PM
11 Comments
Rate this Entry

My Take On The Anti-SLAPP “Victory” by BM

Even though Snowflake’s remark on Robbie’s wall post said a lot of what I said, mine got removed and his didn’t and I thought mine was a totally decent take so here it is.

Please see this excerpt. Court rules that TG's assertion that the accusation was narrowly applied to the videotaped performances being produced on non-original hardware is a properly false assertion because why would they remove ALL scores if they just cared about the videotaped scores? The information that follows, in my opinion, nearly proves that TG really didn't care about anything but the videotaped scores. They quote Jace saying he "didn't care" and that lack of action from TG is what is being used to prove malice. This is backwards. TG removed BMs scores because they determined the videotaped performances submitted to Arcade were not arcade. False submission is perfect grounds for removal from the database and a ban from participation. No amount of eye witness testimony changes the artifacts on the videotaped runs. Yet the court is saying TG's lack of investigation of the in-person accounts amounts to malice while also saying TG is "lying" about only caring about the videotaped scores. Funny eh?


EDIT: also see the red underlined portion. The court won't weigh competing evidence. They have to go with what's favorable to the plaintiff. This is the basis for all the assertions they are making regarding TG's narrow focus on the videotaped runs. Chain of custody of the tapes, protocol and procedure surrounding in-person performances, all of it - they have to go with what Billy's saying since it's just plaintiff vs defendant competing evidence and they technically have to go with what favors the plaintiff. Yes this means the dismissal of the anti-SLAPP suit is based on a technicality, and the ruling describing this dismissal is simply taking Billy's narrative as truthful.


Comments
  1. Lauren Tyler's Avatar

    I swear, he must have some kind of influence of some kind.

  2. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Tyler

    I swear, he must have some kind of influence of some kind.

    Billy has said so much, after awhile some of it has to be truthful, right?

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    i have an arguemnt with one point " Yet the court is saying TG's lack of investigation of the in-person accounts amounts to malice while also saying TG is "lying" about only caring about the videotaped scores. Funny eh? "

    the way my non lawyer mind understands how anti slapp works is, its basically a "did you plug it in" sort of check. anti slapp checks for things like "im suing him for saying i'm ugly" or "my evidence is it came to me in a dream"

    the anti slapp is there to remove the most absurd lawsuits -- that make no mistake, they do happen. for the anti slapp they have to assume all accusations by billy are true. BUT even with that it could be trhown out. like i say if billy says "i'm suing cause jace called me ugly" even if true thats not suable.

    so no, they didnt say there was malice, they just said billy provided evidece towards malice. the evidence was super duper weak, but it was sort of evidence so things can proceed


    in my non court experienced opinoin, billy is in for a MAJOR disappointinment if he thinks "winning" the anti-slapp will transfer to the real court

  4. lexmark's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake




    in my non court experienced opinoin, billy is in for a MAJOR disappointinment if he thinks "winning" the anti-slapp will transfer to the real court

    And that's EXACTLY how I see it too. I think he would have been better off if he didn't win this.

    I feel strongly that karma will bite very hard with this one!!!!! :)....for all the obvious reasons.


    john


    .

  5. bensweeneyonbass's Avatar

    I can abide by that angle - evidence of malice vs existence of malice. Given that the nature of this ruling relies on the nuances of the law and how it’s worded, the semantics do matter.

  6. bensweeneyonbass's Avatar

    The part about the malice that drew my opinion, and caused me to assert that it was backwards, is this:

    A) TG removes all of BMs scores because they determined he submitted something to Arcade platform that was not done on arcade hardware. Improper submissions break the rules and rule breakers get tossed.

    B) The court (for lack of a better and more descriptive group term) asserts that TG doesn't actually care just about the submissions to Arcade platform that didn't use arcade hardware. The court says TG cares about the greater picture - that "Billy is a cheater" - because of the scope of his score removal.

    C) The court identifies that TG has made statements that they "don't care" about any of the other stuff. Eyewitness accounts at in-person events, testimony that hardware was verified by Nintendo or an operator, chain of custody of the videotapes, everything - TG did what they needed to do to verify the tapes were the submissions made by BM and that's all they needed to know.

    D) The court supports the claim that TG's failure to pursue information as requested by the defendant amounts to evidence of malice (based on some case law precedent).

    E) The court fails to identify that the information TG failed to pursue is outside of the scope of what TG is claiming about BM's submissions to Arcade platform not having been done on arcade hardware.


    So, TG failed to pursue information that they consider irrelevant to their decision. It was irrelevant during the dispute process and remains to be irrelevant - once the videotapes were confirmed as being the ones that represented BM's submissions to Arcade platform, that was that. Frankly the lion's share of the work came in analyzing the technology itself and not determining if these was really BM's tapes or not. That effort put in by TG to analyze the technology, and all the supporting information surrounding the non-arcade videotapes being submitted to Arcade platform, is set aside so that they can focus on TG's refusal to pursue additional information as requested by the defendant. The good faith that TG put into the analysis is marginalized in favor of the perceived bad faith in not pursuing this additional irrelevant information.

  7. Snowflake's Avatar

    yes, from all i read you're allowed to have really bad logic in an anti-slapp, and they have to pretend the logic is good.

    When i bought a house i was suprirsed how the seamtnics of law works. Alot of the wording, to pedantic science and math types, was honestly wrong. its amazing, these long legal documents that are very hard to understand -- presumably you trade ease of understanding for the benefit of exact pedantry that only has one interpertatoin -- yet the exact wording is wrong too and it goes to "what was meant". WTF!!!!!!!!!!! if after you read that long paragraph, all that matters is what was meant, then why waste time with such a long document and just give the every day speech write up?

    law will go on and on with all sorts of details, and then a judge will rule those details didnt really mean what they said as written. i'm sure theres some method to it, like leraning a new language or something, but yeah, reading legal docs takes more than just being smart, it takes a law course, cause the more i learn about the law the more i learn it doesnt work remotely close to how you would think

  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    its also worth pointing out malice is basiccally about mind reading. So yes its about did jace ignore it because he didnt want to know the truth, or did he ignore it because he felt it had no bearing on the truth.

    Likesbensweeneyonbass liked this post
  9. Bishop Black's Avatar

    So I was thinking about the Lance Armstrong doping scandal and apparently all of his wins since a specific date (1998) were stricken from the records.

    I'm not sure if that's significant, but then hypothetically couldn't Twin Galaxies instead just strike out all of the records submitted since the date of the first instance of cheating (the original Donkey Kong video)?

  10. bensweeneyonbass's Avatar

    That’s a great question. It would depend on having historic data on prior scores for BM as I know he improved his scores over time leading up to the mame submissions.

    Then again it’s up to TG to define their policies and enforce them and it seems like their policy is you get wiped out if you’re found to have knowingly broken the rules.

    LikesBishop Black liked this post
  11. Snowflake's Avatar

    i've heard the point of view before, that scores from before you were a cheater should stay, and scores after removed. Its worth noting even the people that believe in removing all scores after, but not before, still believe in removing valid scores if the valid scores happened after cheating. This is why the logic feels a bit inconsistent to me. If you dont allow valid scores after the cheating date because a cheater cant be trusted then shouldnt we be equally concerned that scores before the cheater was caught are equally untrustworthy?

    we know how easy it was to get fake scores approved in the old days. We also know billy in particular got special treatment. I'm a fan of mass removal. I suppose of course if it could ever be 100% proven a specific old score was valid, fine, include it, but the problem is how can you really prove such a thing?

    another thing is consistency. TG has banned and stripped other members. I dont recall billy mitcchel or walter day or anyone else having a problem with that policy until it was applied to billy.

    so while i do sort of get the point of view, and i think plenty of people are sincere in wanting it, not only do i have my opinion against it, which is just that an opinion, but further i do feel if that different policy were adopted it would come off as now as capitulating to billy as opposed to truly prefering the new policy. I really dont think tg should change policy based on how wounded billy mitchel's inner child is in response

Join us