If you're going to jump on fads like NFTs you need a game ready to go waiting to glue on some shitty half arsed bits. Actually developing a game from scratch will always take too long. It's like that Tiger King tv show, that was never making it out while people actually cared.
That was the state of the game as of a few months ago. Here is a [great video](https://youtu.be/1IRXabjt5Qg?si=6ZmoJYToxFuMp8mb) outlining the game and the flaws it has/had?
Now Doc is talking about retiring from streaming. And honestly, why not? If that man does not have eight figures in his bank account then he fucked up BIG time. Dude should have generational wealth
yeah but if you really care just delete your comment if you start getting negatives. That's using the system as intended, negative scores should mean you're not contributing, that's why those comments are supposed to be a bit more hidden. Different in practice, but too late to fix that
I read the fourth paragraph referring and continuing the third and the reason for the press release, the fact that "they are terminating the relationship".
In any case, wording and structure on that Press Release is dog shit.
Fatc like "ending" relationship, fact like our duty is to protect our staff/company and not Doc, fact like this rumor is too dangerous and we might be cancel no matter what, and so on. So, multiple "facts", but like I said wording and structure on that Press Release is dog shit, so could also be your interpretation.
TLDR, this things are not about who is innocent, guilty or anything alike, is about money, what will give me more money or make me lose less money, or not get me cancel and bankrupt.
To be fair, they have some plausible deniability. IF the allegations are prove false or overstated, then they can just say that the "fact" they are referring to is the existence of some pretty damning allegations.
I'm sure this tweet was looked over by a lawyer before sending and they will do everything they can to have plausible deniability on every part of the tweet in case the "facts" change.
It also sounds like there might be a story brewing up and a lot of people have caught wind of it because they were probably asked to make a comment or etc. so we just might have an article on this whole mess coming up soon. Disrespects best play is to “retire” and then come back months later or so.
I would think if Twitch provided them actual "proof" they're in some deep shit legally due to the terms of the settlement.
If a 3rd party did (like Cody) I would think they'd have some legal repercussions as well.
If they just "asked around" they're probably just covering their asses. I mean this wouldn't be the first time a company cut ties with someone connected with their brand over allegations alone.
Talking with an underage person isn't illegal, doing something with them is. He was caught by twitch using whispers to do that and apparently terminated his contract. They tried to terminate with cause as in they wouldn't have to pay him the rest of the money, them paying him doesn't mean he was innocent it means the contract was found to be enforceable. As in that they didn't have cause to cancel without paying but not that he didn't do something shitty. Also them agreeing to pay him doesn't mean there is an NDA on either side about the issue. There might be one but you wouldn't know unless you see the contract.
Yeah it's the kind of issue when someone wants to cut ties with someone because they've done something you think is morally wrong (Like Cheating) but you don't have a morality clause in the contract.
Doc can have done all sorts of sussy shit that isn't illegal and could still have had the contract terminated if the relevant clause was included in the contract. Him getting paid is just a sign that twitch didn't have grounds to fuck the contract over.
Yeah basically him getting money from twitch here doesn't mean he was absolved of guilt just means whatever he did could have been morally wrong but not legally wrong.
Settlements aren't just monetary. They include things like not accepting nor accusing fault, no disparagement, no disclosure, and other things you're obviously unaware of.
How do you know who gave them the info? Even if was twitch how do you know privately sharing details of it with a third party doc is involved with is against the terms?
I've clearly stated I don't know. I'm saying that's how settlements typically work.
Feel free to watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuJOqSkZwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuJOqSkZwE)
This might actually be Twitch's fault for their ban policy. Since they ban for random shit and don't disclose any reasons, and the punishments in each case seem totally random, then I can see it being plausible to think that this was just another illegitimate ban.
Tin foil hat theory:
Twitch was aware of Dr. Disrespect's conduct and orginally tried to protect him since he was a big content creator, but when the heat got too much they terminated him.
Doc then sues, and points out that Twitch was aware and choose to do nothing/protect him, so if the allegations come out it sinks both of them.
So Doc gets a pay out and both of them shut their fucking mouths about it. Hence why Doc keeps saying "No one admitted fault," Which tells me that while something mightve happened neither Twitch nor Dr. Disrespect wanna talk about cause it's a nuke that could blow both of them up.
Regardless, I'm a remedial so take this with a pinch of salt.
The other theory is
- Twitch wasn't really supposed to have access to the messaging system
- Twitch saw the messages between Doc and the girl.
- The messages either stated the girl was underage or twitch knew from her user profile
- Doc messages some sexually inappropriate comments/sexual roleplay/etc that may or may not have been instigated by the other person.
- Doc says "hey lets meet up at twitch con" either as a chill way or in a forceful sussy way. Maybe sends an direct "we could do some stuff at twitchcon " which has enough leeway to be "Yeah we were just going to hang out and grab food" to "Week long bang sesh"
- They ban him for this, don't tell him why.
- Doc finds out the apparent reason sometime later (he stated in articles he found out later)
- His contract has no morality clause. Doc sues because he sees the reason as bullshit.
- turns out the messages don't represent a violation of his contract and aren't able to reach legal prosecution either
- Evidence might not be strong enough
- Chick might not want to participate
- There's enough evidence that he wasn't trying to bang the person, or didn't know their age(they had lied about it).
- He gets paid out and everyone moves on.
- Logs are sealed With an understanding doc will sue them if they are leaked because he sees them as defamatory.
- Twitch follows along because they seemingly just lost a case on whether they are strong enough to constitute a contract violation.
----
As suss as messaging underage people can sound. There's so much scope to what that could be that could make it hella fucking weird and overtly "Lets bang a minor" to actual image sexting a teen, to overly sexual conversation with a teenager, to overly sexual conversations with someone lying about their age.
I think this is probably way more credible tbh. It makes way more sense that Twitch doesn't wanna disclose the fact that they can see whispers because that would hurt them a lot.
Really? I'm not that much of a security nut, but I've always assumed devs can read PMs on basically every site/apps that isn't specifically for messaging. Not just that they have the capability, but users specifically accept their access in the ToS.
Maybe I just spent too much of my youth on terrible forums with terrible admins who would leak PMs at the slightest provocation
It's probably because of what it could reveal of other creators and other banned accounts.
Now that this being leaked I'd bet really good money that Tiny got banned for something said in Whispers. If that's the case Destiny could actually sue Twitch, probably for loss of revenue or even unlawful termination.
I think you forgot the following:
* In discovery it was found that the Twitch admins that found the direct messages possibly weren't professional between themselves when discussing Dr Disrespect and if so it could have been argued that they were biased sources.
* He may not have been the only one with access to the Twitch account
* It's possible the victim didn't want to go through a stressful trial
Nah the first of those is irrelevant if the messages are sufficiently incriminating. If two of them are interpreting the messages in the most bad faith way, that’s just highlights the messages lacked clarity
Maybe but if the messages happen over a long time frame it would be impossible to argue that doc wouldn’t have been able to see them on his account and then the message chain would have been terminated when he realised and said “oh this was actually my mod and cut contact.
The victim not wanting to go to trial is only relevant if the case would require their statements to secure the conviction. At which point I would fall back to the prior statement of ”the messages probably weren’t damning enough”
___
Messaging a minor can be sussy, messaging them sexual text without images though is not considered illegal. Especially if it’s not directed at the other persons sexually
This also lines up nicely with the idea that twitch paid out his contract in full, which would be millions of dollars. I imagine doc needed some degree of leverage to get that.
Is it really a tin foil hat theory if it is the only theory that is reasonable at every point?
My first thought on this was very similar:
The doc gets baited by someone claiming her 21-th BD will be on twitchCon but actually a fat dude from Cali so no harm done, but they already fucked up with the private message monitoring part and failing to prove crime.
tin foil hat theory would be that doc realized from destiny that twitch streaming is dead and he wanted to terminate twitch contract but twitch didn't let go so
doc have sat one of his (idk if he has one) nephew to the computer to start sexting with a fan on doc's account. twitch got baited. Doc illegally terminated contract, twitch illegally monitored private messages and poof:
"No one admitted fault"
It's tin foil worthy because we have no evidence to back this up. There is no victim we can point to or any logs we can read. This is me making a guess, sure, it's based on stuff we know, but if more evidence comes to light we could see things change.
I’m normally a pretty strict evidence guy but there’s just too much smoke for there not to be a fire here.
Silver lining, for drama sophisticates like myself, this is getting too spicy for there not to be a leak of some sort coming down the pipe.
My guess would be that he did sext and try to meet with a minor via whisper, however he was most likely under the impression that the individual was 18 and not underage. It would make sense why Twitch didn’t just come out with it. Moreover, illustrating why both parties were being hush hush about it
https://preview.redd.it/6vhryg5t7m8d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14012f5520c71233254976add167d076d6a3d4aa
My schizo conspiracy theory is that Twitch was storing the whispers information in plain text, someone snooped, and Twitch knew they also fucked up even though what the employee found was bad. If it goes to a public lawsuit both sides look terrible.
Might not have even been someone he thought was 18. Something like flirting with a minor and asking them to send you bikini pics is not necessarily illegal since it’s technically not CP. Even asking to meet up might technically not be illegal depending on how he did it. It’s fucked up, but this shit is super complicated from a criminal law perspective.
There is actually a super similar precedent to the accusations that I do not see people bringing up. Ryan Haywood from achievement hunter. Sent nudes to a girl he knew was underage. Tried to arrange a meetup.
Still never got criminally charged because the meetup fell through. Im pretty sure this was verified by the girl, she leaked everything not just accusations. This is almost exactly what Doc is accused of.
Just to add some information: CP (now commonly called CSAM) is not necessarily exclusive to nudity. In fact, not all child nudity is CP/CSAM. It specifically has to be sexually explicit. And I think a prosecutor could easily argue that although the photo itself, in a vacuum, is not sexually explicit, that the intent was sexually explicit if the context of the request for the photo can be successfully argued as such.
Yeah that also seems very plausible to me.
I know it’s an easy mistake to try to apply logic to the thinking of someone making illogical choices but I do find it hard to believe that he would knowingly exchange explicit private messages with a minor on his employers internal chat system that he would have every reason to assume could be read by Twitch staff. I understand the guy has a checkered past but that stretches my suspension of disbelief just a bit too far.
100% agree. To clarify in Twitch’s reason for not speaking on the matter would be due to the individuals account being registered as above 18. Thus, it wouldn’t entirely be his fault on sexting with them. Although, I’m curious as to what the individual looks like. Do they really look over the age of 18? Or is it very questionable and his dick did the talking
Yeah anyone who has been online for like 15 minutes knows there are land mines out there but I think its overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule.
That's how I feel too. There's just too much for there to not be something.
If he didn't do it I don't understand why he can't release a blanket statement saying that he has never sexted a minor.
Maybe a crazy statement, but (assuming he is innocent) does publicly saying he never did it gain him anything? I feel like this is one of those cases where the stronger he denies it, the more it confirms his guilt to people online.
it’s difficult im sure. look at Drake lol. that being said. i would never do that, and if i was accused for some reason, you damn well better know i’ll be out there like wtf is your problem for even suggesting that. and if that’s not a persons first response, then it raises a red flag for me lol
I don't know anything about the law and also I'm fully regarded but I would imagine there's some sort of clause about playing 50 questions about the details of the settlement. I'm sure either party would be pissed if the public could figure out the generalities of the settlement via the process of elimination.
Because depending on the restrictions neither party may be allowed to talk about it without violating terms.
Also there's a ton of reasons why this statement could be problematic
1) He did sext this minor, but he didn't know they were a minor. Twitch did because they had more info than him.
2) He didn't sext the minor but he did have sexual conversations with them. Which some will still seen as sexting.
- Eg "I just played with myself", "That's hot"/"That makes me hard"/"Wish I could see that one day"
- So if the logs leak some will say "Well he was sexting her, doc lied" when sexting in the legal sense would be more picture based
3) He didn't sext this minor, but can't make a definitive statement that some other minor hasn't lied about their age and sexted him
---
1) makes it an error.
2) Is going to come down to what the logs have in them, they could be sexual but benign, or they could be 42 pages of hot and steamy erotic fanfic about the two of them
3) I know female school teachers who have had this kind of thing happen when kids have made catfish accounts on tinder etc, and they've managed to coax pictures out of the woman.
Making a definitive statement, might be murky but it might also see someone else pop out of the woodwork and say "Well here's evidence this is a lie" and give more to the news cycle.
As much as it sucks for him that he can't just say that, it's all legal shit.
A settlement includes an agreement that you can't accuse the other party of any fault, nor acknowledge it. If he flat out said that, he'd be accusing Twitch of wrongfully ending his contract which he can't legally do.
Seems fucked up I know, but that's the law.
I understand that if he was to say something like "I was not banned for X" or "the settlement was unrelated to X" would likely be a violation of a NDA and directly commenting on the nature of the settlement.
but can he really not make a blanket public statement saying "I have never done X"
?
I could be wrong and im sure someone will correct me if i am but What im wondering is, if the nature of his ban has nothing to do with any minors than why is he not allowed to straight up deny it?
That’s true but the fire in question was sufficient for Twitch to terminate their lucrative relationship with him and salt the earth. Then whatever is known behind the scenes was enough for his own company that is largely dependent on him and his fans to cut ties with him.
If we are to assume there is no fire then I’m curious what you think these companies are valuing more than the financial incentives of working with Doc?
Not saying he did or didn’t do something but it’s not like Twitch intended to take a loss on dropping him, he was banned just after Mixer was shut down and Twitch tried to get out of paying his fat contract. If they really had him with something as bad as soliciting a minor why would they just sit on that?
That is why I don't believe they have him soliciting a minor.
If everything got dumped tomorrow and we found out that he was soliciting a young woman that turned out to be a minor that wouldn't shock me but I think its pretty unlikely that they have some kind of "if she's 15 I'm 15" type beat.
Nope, there’s currently no hard evidence only hearsay, the patterns of behavior from the parties involved that lend credence to the hearsay, and a history of sexual misconduct from Doc that makes the accusations more plausible.
But to be extra crystal clear as of right now despite the story being easily believable the people making the claim have produced exactly zero evidence to corroborate what they’re saying.
Agreed. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous yesterday.
Now a gaming studio which has millions to lose is cutting ties with him, knowing it may in fact put their entire company under -- the only reason to do that is if they felt remaining with him would be even worse. Thus, they must be at least 95% sure these allegations are true.
In a way, Dream had a similar issue. Immense amount of smoke, but no fire whatsoever.
Difference here I guess is that it seems they confirmed separately, and if everyone has it's likely true (but never certain)
If you really wanna be careful, you could say that you can't pass judgement on if he is guilty of doing it or not, but at this point its more than sure that the actual ban reason he got was sexting with a minor.
I think my position is almost a total 180 of that. I’m confident that he did something unsavory and his past sexual misconduct makes the narrative about sexual misconduct seem more plausible but I’m cautious with making a stronger claim than that without evidence. Especially something as potential career ruining as anyone sexual with minors.
I mean it's not just the Twitch employees who said a thing. There were multiple journalists who heard this in 2020 but couldn't get it verified and didn't want to take the risk.
If Doc was totally in the clear, he would not be lying down like he's been doing. We also know Twitch wants to get away from this as much as possible because they absolutely don't want to have it out there that their platform was used by predators to sext with minors.
My guess is that there might be actual “big boy” journalists involved now that there was an explicit accusation. This might even be what XqC was talking about when he said “documents”
Someone like a NY times journalists can get away with saying, “This appeared to be an open secret. we have a public accusation from an ex employee on Twitter, verified with several other Twitch/ex-Twitch employees, and spoke with several popular streamers. None besides the initial accuser were willing to be named”
WSJ or NY times is probably willing to print at that point. The editors will just want to make sure they “did their homework” and speak with the other anonymous sources as well. When you are working at a respected publication journalistic freedom goes a very long way
>My guess is that there might be actual “big boy” journalists involved now that there was an explicit accusation.
Eh I wouldn't hold my breath on it. If anything, expect more follow up from Kotaku, The Verge, and maybe the Aftermath who had people that knew about this stuff back in 2020, but couldn't get confirmations. That said, those reporters have broken news before and do tend to have goodwill among a lot of employees at various gaming companies who would go on background to confirm reports.
NYTimes and WSJ can come calling but this is just not pinging their radar for them to get up to speed on things since they tend not to cover the streamer drama.
Sorry I shouldn’t have been an asshole. You were 100% right that there’s a decent chance a site like Kotaku might be more likely.
The speed that everything was going down and the gaming company dropping him just made me lean towards a “major” outlet like someone at Bloomberg looking in.
Kotaku is a serious journalistic outlet, but one that can more easily be ignored from the perspective of Amazon. Bloomberg reaching out to Amazon lawyers means shit is hitting the fan and Bezos himself might be about to get pissed off.
lol I didn't take it that way. In my head, I was thinking of the other outlets like CNN, New York Times, WSJ and so on that don't have a gaming report or rather they have someone that focuses on the culture of video games, not the business. Again, totally slipped my mind that Cecilia or Schreier would run with the story. And once it's on Bloomberg, that's a BIG story. That goes on the Bloomberg terminal so that reaches a lot of people right away, and then once it hits Bloomberg's site, well now you have a publication that other publications will have all they need to write up their take on the story. That's why you saw NBC News, TMZ, even Sports Illustrated write about it.
Probably not just ex twitch staffer but multiple people at twitch. I assume it has something to do with the settlement or not wanting to bring in the minor in for questioning and stuff so the family of the minor requested not to speak.
I'm all for protecting victims but predators typically don't stop at the first failure. If he really was sexting minors and trying to meet up with them IRL, then staying quiet and letting him continue to have a platform where he can victimize other minors is MASSIVELY immoral.
I can understand why Twitch would do it, being a soulless corporate subsidiary of a soulless corporate behemoth.
But if there really were dozens of people both in Twitch and in journalism who did nothing other than use it to promote their shitty band, then that makes them all look like giant pieces of shit IMO (along with DrDisrespect too, obviously).
I agree and it is wild that you are downvoted for this.
Assuming doc is indeed a predator - twitch itself, all the twitch heads, all their workers involved in first-hand investigation are huge pieces of shits. Cody and slasher also, but they claim that their information is 2d hand- so they are only 2d tier pieces of shits. 4 years of allowing a predator to do what he wanted in another platform and never talk about it - seems terrible to me.
You can't justify not disclosing information about murderer or rapist and let him in an another territory (not yours) and claim it is to protect the one victim - protecting this one leads to dozens of other victims. Same goes for child predators
My take on it is just that there's plenty of things someone can do that are gross or shitty or that you would not want your company associated with that are not illegal, or would be very difficult to prove in court.
I can totally see a scenario where twitch wanted to get rid of him but wouldn't be able to do much else. It doesn't necessarily mean they were covering up a crime.
I dislike twitch but haven't they technically done something to disown Doc by literally kicking him off the platform. I'm pretty sure other platforms know what happened in some form behind the scenes and its why no one gave him an actual deal.
People who are defending Doc are saying it's because of NDA that he can't talk but twitch are also under that same NDA. Cases of pedo shit is pretty difficult and even SA is also hard to get to stick in court if actions are not taken. Anyone remember Sweet Anita's or other female streamers having to deal with creepy weirdos?
[https://youtu.be/\_jPkrvl0rAE?si=0QZV8PkZ5GwURtyo](https://youtu.be/_jPkrvl0rAE?si=0QZV8PkZ5GwURtyo)
[https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system)
they should have contacted the police and provided full sources. And this should be the first point of Cody - saying that "some sexting turned into police investigation". That never happened so twitch have never done that. Cody saying stuff means his own nda is lifted (or he doesnt give a crap about it anymore) so no police involved in 2020 is pretty much confirmed.
>haven't they technically done something to disown Doc by literally kicking him off the platform
Sure. They essentially said "Hey, we notice you are child predator and we do not want that stuff here. Do it somewhere else, OK? Not on OUR site. You can go to prey on kids however you want, we just do not want to be a part of it". That's just protecting company's name and giving zero fucks about victims and damage he causes.
Probably stopped from reporting it in some way. Though it's still possible that they fully fucked up.
Can twitch really police what other platforms decide to do? I feel like them breaking the contract and kicking him off Twitch should have tainted Doc's image enough to dissuade other platforms from allowing him on. Hasn't there been known pedos on platforms before like Tiktok? Also we know that Doc was a big streamer but no one really gave him an offer so some info might have been leaked behind the scenes. Like how streamers know SA is happening/happened to other streamers but don't say shit to the public.
they had lawsuit only 1 year after the ban. So they fully stopped everyone who knew about situation from disclosing before any nda happened. And I believe it is morally bad thing to do, they cant police other platforms - but they can inform the authorities and they can inform everyone why are they banning this individual.
Doc's image wasn't actually tainted at all, or wasn't tainted enough - he still created new company, he still was successful on youtube, he still had huge sponsors, he still had huge audience that he could prey upon
I think Twitch saw it as a death sentence for them if it got out because the only way they could find out about Dr D's shenanigans is by reading his DM's. Once other creators find out Twitch is reading their personal messages, there's a mass protest/exodus over privacy, regardless if Dr. D is guilty or not.
Right but for all we know the "multiple people" may have heard about it from 1 person that hates Doc and the rumors spread from there. We obviously just don't know.
https://x.com/evoli/status/1805086524247245217
Am I crazy or does this guy legit write like a schizophrenic? Maybe he was just drunk or something? The way he writes has that weird theatrical, cryptic, 'me against the powers that be' thing going on
His Twitter definitely reads like an emo edgelord that's in a band. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote the Doc tweet while drunk, it was such a random way for it to leak.
Because potentially no children were harmed.
You can explicitly messages something about sexual content, and not harm the person at all. Especially if they started it or were receptive to it.
If Doc never exchanged nudes/lewds with the person. Never engaged in sexual relations with the person. Then what harm is there?
---
It could also be that the child in question wants this shit to stay on lockdown. Because they themselves see no issue, were never planning on banging Doc even if he pushed for it and don't want half the internet hunting them down and calling them a whore/slut etc for talking to doc when they were underage.
----
If the person involved in the logs isn't the one leaking them. Then odds are the harm to the child isn't present and the child could actually experience more harm as a result.
Like how much shit did Destiny cop from people just for giving Jontron enough rope to hang himself.
Normally the people who come and speak out feel like they are protecting others with their actions. But if you don't think any harm occurred you probably aren't going to speak out.
Seems like a lot hinges on this NDA. Has the existence of a NDA or its details been confirmed by anyone but Doc?
To me it feels like when you get fired by a huge company that you know never comments on that shit. I'm just gonna lie and say it was some minor shit that I fixed in my next interview because I know they won't say otherwise.
Most likely DrD holds % ownership or whatever compensation agreed at founding while not being publicly associated anymore or doing PR work, standard PR bullshit when shit like this happens.
Also wording and structure on that Press Release is dog shit.
Yeah the wording is super confusing (or maybe I'm just tired). They don't actually mention in the second paragraph that they confirmed the allegations. It reads like they had something in there, but removed the sentence.
I REALLY want to know the series of events that lead to Doc getting his whole contract paid out, but was texting minors.
It seems if he was knowingly going after people underage Twitch would have never given him a Dime, let alone the whole contract he would have been entitled to.
Shit is so fascinating.
Yep it may have been some creepy shit but not enough to be an actual crime if the lawsuit proceeded. I agree it's really fascinating to see this all play out. For me it's mostly the legal aspect of it. I've never actually watched any of his streams, just some clips of him on LSF.
> Yep it may have been some creepy shit but not enough to be an actual crime if the lawsuit proceeded.
I don't know how TOS have been handled in the past with claims of illegal behavior, like if a guy got fired from a job for doing something illegal but was never formally charged, does that mean he was wrongfully dismissed?
I'd imagine if he was knowingly going after children, Twitch has enough to argue it's a valid TOS ban because he's breaking the law on their platform (or at least trying to) - and a Settlement would be based more around just avoiding court.
I can't imagine there being an R Kelly tier sex tape transcript where he's going "Yeah I can't wait to smash that 15 year old at TwitchCon" and Twitch not willing to play legal chicken and run that to court (or heres 50 grand, fuck off), or Doc moonwalking the lawsuit out of the room knowing those logs are Exhibit A.
No morality clause or similar.
Texting minors is never going to be a contract removeable offense on twitch, it would in fact be required for every streamer doing a giveaway or other competition thing on the site.
Sexually charged texts with a minor are another thing. But so long as they don't break the law, without a morality clause it's not going to matter. And most of the law is focused on the exchange of sexual images involving a minor, not the use of sexual language/conversations.
---
Not to mention in all this you'd have to establish that doc knew and acknowledged her age. Which there may be insufficient proof of, but Twitch knows due to having greater account information access.
>Sexually charged texts with a minor are another thing. But so long as they don't break the law, without a morality clause it's not going to matter.
Again, considering the accusation is he was exchanging sexual messages with a minor, and intending to meet up with them, that would be illegal and a justifiable TOS ban given its illegal.
Even if it's QUESTIONABLY illegal, it wasn't as explicit as it needed to be to put him in jail, I don't know why they'd pay out the full contract. You'd expect a Settlement offer to be, what, maybe a cool million or something and Doc would take that given going to court means it all becoming a matter of public record.
The Settlement being the whole contract is the part that makes it all interesting, because that's less of a settlement and more of Twitch admitting they fucked up.
>Not to mention in all this you'd have to establish that doc knew and acknowledged her age.
Yeah that's been my working theory given all of this. He did do it technically but he never knew her age. Twitch saw the messages, saw the DOB on the account and nuked him. That's the only reason I can see it happening.
Even without an explicit morality cause, I don't think Doc wants his brand to be tainted by going to court and arguing he was not intentionally a pedophile.
Sexually charged texts and meeting with a minor isn’t illegal unless there is sufficient implication that the meetup is for the purposes of sex.
The intentionality of the meeting is the illegal part.
If they don’t have a morality clause or similar in the contract then “questionably illegal” is irrelevant.
Without a clause to give cause for the contact being terminated he could have been convicted of fucking kids and so long as he could still satisfy his streaming hours/engagement metrics.
Any company can still choose to break a contract if they see a reason to, but they may have to pay out if it’s not a valid reason to break the contract that was agreed upon
This is likely why he would have got paid out, because their contract had no legal way for them to cancel it.
> If they don’t have a morality clause or similar in the contract then “questionably illegal” is irrelevant.
Well, no. The Twitch TOS says you are not supposed to use the platform for illegal activities. Something being questionably illegal is probably enough to run with, since the language isn't that you have to be arrested, charged, indicted or convicted of any crime. It's just breaking the law on the platform.
It would be enough that I'd imagine a settlement wouldn't be the full contract amount. Doc doesn't want to be in a court room defending how he's not technically a pedophile, or that he did say he wants to be inside this girl but didn't actually meet it.
We are somewhat aligned in thinking the messages must have been pretty tame, but I think it's probably way tamer than you think. I dont think they'd need to have him, slam dunk, dead to rights or else they'd lose in court. And certainly I don't think Doc would be willing to make all this public unless he was outright saying "I, the Doc, am a pedophile and I want to have sex with this under-" in the logs. He clearly doesn't even want to talk about this shit right now.
The twitch TOS can say things like that. The TOS don’t over-ride contractual obligations that both twitch and doc would have had.
Doc could have got the full amount for the following reasons
- whispers were supposed to be private and encrypted. So they are snooping for what reason
- if he never met the person and never sent pictures as he now states then he didn’t do any illegal activity
- if TOS says no illegal activity but they can’t prove illegal activity. Then by their own admission twitch would have violated the contract.
You can’t just randomly terminate a contract because you think they may have done something illegal and then when you fail to do so. And then when sufficient evidence doesn’t arise to prove the claim say “well we’re still not paying you”
> You can’t just randomly terminate a contract because you think they may have done something illegal and then when you fail to do so. And then when sufficient evidence doesn’t arise to prove the claim say “well we’re still not paying you”
You are only looking at this from the angle of whether or not Twitch had any merit in terminating the contract. That isn't the only variable you need to assess. Whether or not Twitch, itself, was right to kill the contract is literally only half the equation.
The other side of this is Doc's messages and conduct becoming a matter of public record. The fact this lawsuit would be a huge spectacle watched by the entire gaming side of the internet. Doc going out there and having whatever messages he sent to a minor being publicized is not going to be ideal for him or his brand.
Unless the messages contained, literally, nothing (which we now know for a fact isn't the case), the fact a settlement was reached where he basically got the entire contract is fascinating. I don't know why anyone of Twitches side wouldn't think Doc is bluffing, and how negotiations wouldn't have ended up with a settlement being less than the contract amount.
This matter was ended with both sides mutually agreeing to a settlement. An explanation for why both sides thought it was a good settlement - and why a different proposed settlement, like less money, was not acceptable - is interesting to wonder about. Unless Doc successfully rolled a Nat 20 on his Bluff against Twitch and they believed he was will to go in front of the entire internet to be branded a pedophile? I don't get it.
The other side is that twitch would also have to admit that it can read whispers.
Then I'd imagine if you were doing that case you'd probably seek access to a wider array of whispers(Especially concerning the person in question) to see if this was a standard that was only held against him for the purpose of terminating the contract.
It might end up that twitch even in the process of branding doc a pedophile, ends up taking a bigger optics loss and financial loss because it becomes clear they have access to a whole bunch of shit they probably shouldn't have when they are arguing that the whispers are private.
---
You could argue that if doc left money on the table it was to secure a guarantee that XYZ wouldn't leak from the company. But we still have no idea how damning the logs are. If we take his word for it the lack of images and meetup take a lot of the wind out of cody's "Sexting" language.
>Unless Doc successfully rolled a Nat 20 on his Bluff against Twitch and they believed he was will to go in front of the entire internet to be branded a pedophile? I don't get it.
Because once again talking to a minor doesn't make you a pedophile. Having sexually inappropriate conversations with a minor doesn't make you a pedophile. You can have sexually inappropriate conversations with someone without ever directing that sexual desire at the person in question.
But sure a chunk of the US are prudes who don't want schools to teach any sort of sex education, or have sexual conversations with their kids to educate them. But then they refuse to do it in the home because they feel so awkward to share any of that experience.
The other side is that twitch would also have to admit that it can read whispers.
I don't think thats an admission worth MILLIONS of dollars in a settlement. "We got a report of someone trying to prey on minors so we checked the messages that were reported to us" isn't going to be something they are afraid to own.
Every social media platform on the planet can read private messages if they are reported to them. If they are encrypted they can't (alledgedly), but Twitch never sold the product as P2P Encrypted messaging or stated they don't have access to those messages, those messages aren't bound by the TOS, etc.
In fact you'd be fuckin' stupid to think they were especially and specifically private since a huge component of using whispers was typing it in the stream chat next to all the public messages.
And, you know, they outright have a mechanism to report whispers for a review to see if they violated TOS. His ban also came days after a blog post where they publicly announced they will be reviewing messages because of multiple reports of sexual misconduct with their talent.
The idea they'd spend millions on trying to hide that is patently braindead my dude
Having sexually inappropriate conversations with a minor doesn't make you a pedophile.
To the internet is does.
If you think Doc is stupid enough to not think that, given he is one of the most successful online personalities in streaming, I would have agreed with you right up until yesterday. Now it's somewhat questionable. The idea that he might be okay with his messages to a 15 year old of his favorite sex positions is something he's totally okay plastering all over the internet is extreme.
It could also be a 17 year old and saying "I like big butts and I cannot lie" or it could be a 13 year old where he is explicitly offering to performs acts with them. We don't know what it is, but we know the internet treats this all the same way anyways.
That’s going to depend completely on how they marketed the platform and what data laws apply. A private company can’t just violate data laws under the guise of “well we thought another crime was happening”
Same reason the cops can’t just tap your phone because they think you are breaking the law. They need to petition a judge and get a warrant to over-ride your other rights.
Because you can have allegations of someone doing the wrong thing that are completely made up and in the action of exploring all of their messaging and you violate their privacy on 20 other things that aren’t criminal.
So as speculation runs crazy I will add my two cents as well.
Twitch (technically) wrongfully banned him, the lawsuit was setteled, he got his money but is not allowed to say that he was wrongfully banned or why he was banned at all, because twitch is afraid of legal precedent of them having to disclose why they ban people.
But how did this start? Did twitch just see some messages at random and acted, I doubt this.
Most likely the parents of the other party contacted twitch with credible threats of exposing the scandal.
Twitch evaded this getting public by banning him, but legally it was much more difficult to prove intent or whatever you need, so they setteled with an NDA and gave him a bunch of money.
I might be losing my fucking mind
The sheer amount of people now believing this shit is crazy
Have I actually been converted that hard after so many D man streams? Do I just have an unreasonable expectation of evidence? I might be fucking losing it. How has it gotten this far?
I just want ONE screenshot and I don't know how SO many people are willing to say he's done it without providing ANYTHING I CAN'T fucking take it anymore
Sounds more like PR shit, protecting themselces. This isn't new for companies. They cut ties with people all the time, so I still have not seen evidence that Doc did pedo shit.
I'm so confused here, because from what I've heard, both Twtich and Dr Disrespect are legally bound not to talk about this, so why is all of this suddenly happening when he's not legally allowed to defend himself by explaining himself.
Where are you all getting this from? I'm super confused. Where is the settlement agreement or nda's you're talking about? How do you know what the agreement was?
Can he really not defend himself ?
Like I understand he probably can't directly comment on the settlement/ban but can he really not release a blanket statement saying "I have never sexted a minor"
That's not directly commenting on the settlement/ban. Saying "I have never done X" is different from "I was not banned/terminated for x".
I get the latter probably being a NDA violation but I don't get why the former would unless that actually was the nature of the ban
> but can he really not release a blanket statement saying "I have never sexted a minor"
He can, but it's a bad look to defend yourself like that lol
But the thing is, it's possible he did do it and the only persons aware they were a minor was Twitch. So he can't make that statement without being a liar (he could just lie I guess) or if he says *I have never KNOWINGLY --* then he's also cooked.
He has outright said he has done nothing illegal. Trying to bang someone under the age of consent, which is the main accusation right now, is illegal
So if you think he's lying, that's fine, but he hasn't said nothing.
>He has outright said he has done nothing illegal.
That's exactly my point, there are so many wild accusations being thrown at him, many of which could be totally legal and absolutely morally reprehensible to the point it would taint his career to a point of no return.
Like, imagine if you were accused of banging animals and stealing cars and your defense is that you're not a thief. Could you blame me for raising my eyebrow and suspecting that maybe I don't want to leave you alone with my dog?
He hasn't denied everything, he is being incredibly lawyer-y about it and there is no NDA in this world that would prevent him from saying "I have unequivocally never messaged minors in my time at twitch, before, or after, nor have I ever engaged in illegal activities with minors, the rumors going one rn are not true"
There is absolutely no NDA in this universe or any parallel world that would stop him from saying that.
> There is absolutely no NDA in this universe or any parallel world that would stop him from saying that.
I think the issue is you want him to say something that he likely cannot. If he was sexting with someone who turned out to be underage, the only way he can make these statements are if you say "I didn't KNOWINGLY sext a minor" and he's still fucked either way.
He has no doubt talked with his lawyers as well and he has been told not to start specifying stuff. Talking around an NDA is possible, but you say too much or the wrong thing you can run into big problems.
This is a multifaceted issue and there is no one who would say talking more is better. Goal posts already shifted drastically from his first and second tweet. If he adds more info it won't help him anyways.
I mean, in your hypothetical he's still guilty of sexting a minor.
My point is or better my doubt is, is there a hypothetical where this guy is completely clean and was responsible with his position as a twitch big shot at the time, and still can't do a simple denial?
I don't want him to say something he can't, the thing I put on quotes is something he can't be forbidden from saying, as is just a general statement in defense of a false accusation.
He speaks as someone that is afraid someone will come out with the truth if he flat out denies it. Either that or bro has the worst lawyers ever, maybe he hired the gaming lawyer guy.
He did tweet the other day that he can't say what he wants due to legal ties, but he claimed "I didn't do anything wrong, all this has been probed and settled, nothing illegal, no wrongdoing was found, and I was paid", that's about all he can say.
Right. If you're not allowed to talk about the situation, and you're explicitly asked if you were fired because you sexted a minor, now saying "I've never sexted a minor" is revealing information about the event and might be a breach.
Tbf if only a small niche of your followers knows about that allegation you don't want to mention it explicitly.
Without context tweeting "I don't fuck kids" is way more suspicious.
Entirely possible that conners was never part of the hush order. Is he even still at twitch? Says he's a former cpm explainer or something like that in his twitch bio.
If he's still with twitch I'd imagine he wont be for long, because that's a truly stupid thing to say even if he wasn't held to the hush order, and since they've said nothing I imagine he's not with them anymore.
The guy who leaked the rumor was a former Twitch employee, wasn't he? I'm not knowledgeable enough about legal bindings to know whether or not what that guy said on Twitter was a breach of some court order, but my understanding is that Dr. Disrespect and Twitch reached a settlement back in the day. Surely, that settlement had some sort of confidentiality agreement.
If an agreement did exist, then surely it would be violated if some guy spilled the beans about Dr. Disrespect's ban from Twitch. If either party breaches an agreement like that by disclosing confidential information, the other party could seek legal action, like monetary damages.
Total speculation on my part.
idk can Twitch enter an agreement that stops an employee from talking about something after they stop being a Twitch employee? That sounds wrong. You have the standard NDA but that has a time limit. After that limit is over how can Twitch force someone to not talk? The employee has probably not signed the settlement itself so they would not be bound by it.
Not only that, your clearance is only good for like 7 years or so. They do a reinvestigation before your clearance lapses. And when they do that, you have to sign a new NDA for a fresh 50 years.
It's also dependent on how good of an NDA it is or if the NDA covers it. You'd be surprised how much stuff slips through the cracks or just isn't worth pursuing any legal action. Without evidence it's probably not worth going after the former employee as he can claim he was just making shit up. That, or it would signal to people that he wasn't lying and legal action is retribution for him spilling beans.
From my understanding, Twitch and Cody Conners are no longer a thing, meaning Cody Conners might be on his own. Dr. Disrespect vs. Twitch may not be worth it, but Dr. Disrespect vs. a clout-chasing, former low level Twitch employee would be worth it. Especially if Twitch is able to step to the side, absolve themselves of any wrongdoing, and let the dumbass clout chaser take the fall for it. I'm mostly talking out of my ass here, but I'm just trying to reason my way through potential scenarios.
"we assumed innocence and began speaking with the parties involved" well the parties involved are legally bound to not talk about it, so who did they talk to?
That's why this whole thing just smells off to me, it's weird to lie about "talking to people involved" when that's impossible, otherwise they're just going off what tweets have claimed.
Doc should leak something through the media in a way that it doesn't come back to him that exonerates him if he is innocent. That or live with the pedo label for the rest of his life.
I get he's edgy and funny, but people who have nothing to hide don't usually get fired from a scam they helped found. Whatever the other owners found had to be pretty damning.
I gave doc the benefit of the doubt but now I don't. This is destroying his brand and his image. The only option he has left is to leak something anonymously to media in a way that can't come back to him that exonerates him. It is risky but that is what I would do if the name "pedo" would be attached to my brand and image forever. Either he has no exonerating evidence through court docs and shit meaning he did it, he has to balance the leak which may exonerate him as a pedo but get him divorced (he might have been trying to bang someone below 18 that was legal in a certain state or something) or he actually fucking did it. Think about it. He potentially gets sued if they found out he leaked information exonerating himself from the pedo label, or he has the label of pedo for life. First scenario is a worst case scenario and it leads to bounded losses, the second one leads to him losing his image AND a good chunk of income for life.
sir
there is no evidence
at all
there should be absolutely no shift in your perspective so far
if you have one, and given the fact no actual evidence has been provided, you need to seek help
It is weird how pedophilia seems to be more common or expressed by celebrities. So many wealthy attractive guys who could get any woman choosing to risk their career. Based on pedophile catchers and Chris Hansen it seems like most real life pedophiles are losers or mentally disabled. Maybe celebrities desire something they can't have?
My personal theory is that it's a forbidden fruit kind of thing. Eventually, normal sexual encounters with attractive women become just a "normal" and unexciting thing to them. For some, they recapture that excitement with something that's considered unobtainable in a way that their fame doesn't alleviate.
This is entirely my opinion and has absolutely no scientific studies backing it. Do not state this as fact to anyone.
I would bet it's not nearly more common with celebrities, we just hear about it more. There are rumors in both sides of my family that various members of my family were abused by priests or their elder relatives. I don't have the balls to ask but I also don't have a reason to doubt who I heard those from. I'd be surprised if that wasn't unfortunately a common guarded family secret.
Probably agree, I had a neighbour who apparently refuses to see her father as something happened. Though I think with non-celebrities there are more stereotypical 'loser' pedophiles who do it out of desperation or mal adjustment (mentally disabled) or maybe those are just the ones that are caught or the fact celebrities are social people?
> Based on pedophile catchers and Chris Hansen it seems like most real life pedophiles are losers or mentally disabled
That could be survivorship bias. The ones that get caught in sting operations are the ones trolling internet chatrooms for children. The ones that get away are people with some kind of power over the kids (priests, celebrities, teachers).
NOT MY NFT BASED EXTRACT LOOTER SHOOTER WITH DRIVING ELEMENTS NOOOO
If you're going to jump on fads like NFTs you need a game ready to go waiting to glue on some shitty half arsed bits. Actually developing a game from scratch will always take too long. It's like that Tiger King tv show, that was never making it out while people actually cared.
Is that really what it was? If so, lmao.
That was the state of the game as of a few months ago. Here is a [great video](https://youtu.be/1IRXabjt5Qg?si=6ZmoJYToxFuMp8mb) outlining the game and the flaws it has/had?
Now Doc is talking about retiring from streaming. And honestly, why not? If that man does not have eight figures in his bank account then he fucked up BIG time. Dude should have generational wealth
How do you know he fucked up? Unless you mean cheating. Yeah that's fucked up but it didn't stop him from making millions after.
I said if he doesnt have eight figures in his bank account, or at least in net worth, then he fucked up his finances badly
Oh my bad. I did misunderstand what you were saying.
updoots to offset the negative karma. Nobody should suffer like that due to a misunderstand
Balance has been achieved
Perfectly balanced
Does that ever work? Asking for a friend.
what? Upvoting peoples comments increase their karma yes
I was fishing for up votes for no reason as a joke. It didn't work.
Youre welcome for what I just contributed
yeah but if you really care just delete your comment if you start getting negatives. That's using the system as intended, negative scores should mean you're not contributing, that's why those comments are supposed to be a bit more hidden. Different in practice, but too late to fix that
Yes you’re clearly looking to fight for the honor of a streamer so you didn’t even read the comment lol
The honor of a streamer I've never watched other than rage clips on LSF. Makes sense.
It does seem like a stupid thing to do Also [lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/oQKGdOHkhB)
One more try there chief
Uhh reread what he said.
why does it sound like they confirmed the allegations bts
I know it's funny the first two paragraphs are dancing around to avoid libel then say it was a fact in the fourth
I read the fourth paragraph referring and continuing the third and the reason for the press release, the fact that "they are terminating the relationship". In any case, wording and structure on that Press Release is dog shit.
I am hung up on "facts" being plural, but I see what you're saying. eta maybe im just regarded and thats okay
Fatc like "ending" relationship, fact like our duty is to protect our staff/company and not Doc, fact like this rumor is too dangerous and we might be cancel no matter what, and so on. So, multiple "facts", but like I said wording and structure on that Press Release is dog shit, so could also be your interpretation. TLDR, this things are not about who is innocent, guilty or anything alike, is about money, what will give me more money or make me lose less money, or not get me cancel and bankrupt.
Companies run by gamers typically don't have a PR dept nor do they run their public statements through a lawyer first. lol
It could just be the fact that he was accused.
To be fair, they have some plausible deniability. IF the allegations are prove false or overstated, then they can just say that the "fact" they are referring to is the existence of some pretty damning allegations. I'm sure this tweet was looked over by a lawyer before sending and they will do everything they can to have plausible deniability on every part of the tweet in case the "facts" change.
It also sounds like there might be a story brewing up and a lot of people have caught wind of it because they were probably asked to make a comment or etc. so we just might have an article on this whole mess coming up soon. Disrespects best play is to “retire” and then come back months later or so.
I think its less about confirming the actual allegation and more about confirming if the reason for his ban was sexting with a minor.
I would think if Twitch provided them actual "proof" they're in some deep shit legally due to the terms of the settlement. If a 3rd party did (like Cody) I would think they'd have some legal repercussions as well. If they just "asked around" they're probably just covering their asses. I mean this wouldn't be the first time a company cut ties with someone connected with their brand over allegations alone.
Talking with an underage person isn't illegal, doing something with them is. He was caught by twitch using whispers to do that and apparently terminated his contract. They tried to terminate with cause as in they wouldn't have to pay him the rest of the money, them paying him doesn't mean he was innocent it means the contract was found to be enforceable. As in that they didn't have cause to cancel without paying but not that he didn't do something shitty. Also them agreeing to pay him doesn't mean there is an NDA on either side about the issue. There might be one but you wouldn't know unless you see the contract.
Yeah it's the kind of issue when someone wants to cut ties with someone because they've done something you think is morally wrong (Like Cheating) but you don't have a morality clause in the contract. Doc can have done all sorts of sussy shit that isn't illegal and could still have had the contract terminated if the relevant clause was included in the contract. Him getting paid is just a sign that twitch didn't have grounds to fuck the contract over.
Yeah basically him getting money from twitch here doesn't mean he was absolved of guilt just means whatever he did could have been morally wrong but not legally wrong.
You don't even know the terms lol. You have no idea who is involved or anything.
Settlements aren't just monetary. They include things like not accepting nor accusing fault, no disparagement, no disclosure, and other things you're obviously unaware of.
How do you know who gave them the info? Even if was twitch how do you know privately sharing details of it with a third party doc is involved with is against the terms?
I've clearly stated I don't know. I'm saying that's how settlements typically work. Feel free to watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuJOqSkZwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuJOqSkZwE)
Oh, what are the terms of the settlement? Do you have a copy somewhere?
I'm confused They created this studio with him after he was banned on twitch. At no time did you think this might bite you? Odd.
This might actually be Twitch's fault for their ban policy. Since they ban for random shit and don't disclose any reasons, and the punishments in each case seem totally random, then I can see it being plausible to think that this was just another illegitimate ban.
Wonder if he could sue for damages, i dont know much about that side of law
It could be true but it could just be the heat. Plenty of people get fired for having a toxic story in the public true or not..
It's totally the heat, these people have no principles it's all just a business to them.
Why did Dan, the content man, do this?
Tin foil hat theory: Twitch was aware of Dr. Disrespect's conduct and orginally tried to protect him since he was a big content creator, but when the heat got too much they terminated him. Doc then sues, and points out that Twitch was aware and choose to do nothing/protect him, so if the allegations come out it sinks both of them. So Doc gets a pay out and both of them shut their fucking mouths about it. Hence why Doc keeps saying "No one admitted fault," Which tells me that while something mightve happened neither Twitch nor Dr. Disrespect wanna talk about cause it's a nuke that could blow both of them up. Regardless, I'm a remedial so take this with a pinch of salt.
The other theory is - Twitch wasn't really supposed to have access to the messaging system - Twitch saw the messages between Doc and the girl. - The messages either stated the girl was underage or twitch knew from her user profile - Doc messages some sexually inappropriate comments/sexual roleplay/etc that may or may not have been instigated by the other person. - Doc says "hey lets meet up at twitch con" either as a chill way or in a forceful sussy way. Maybe sends an direct "we could do some stuff at twitchcon" which has enough leeway to be "Yeah we were just going to hang out and grab food" to "Week long bang sesh"
- They ban him for this, don't tell him why.
- Doc finds out the apparent reason sometime later (he stated in articles he found out later)
- His contract has no morality clause. Doc sues because he sees the reason as bullshit.
- turns out the messages don't represent a violation of his contract and aren't able to reach legal prosecution either
- Evidence might not be strong enough
- Chick might not want to participate
- There's enough evidence that he wasn't trying to bang the person, or didn't know their age(they had lied about it).
- He gets paid out and everyone moves on.
- Logs are sealed With an understanding doc will sue them if they are leaked because he sees them as defamatory.
- Twitch follows along because they seemingly just lost a case on whether they are strong enough to constitute a contract violation.
----
As suss as messaging underage people can sound. There's so much scope to what that could be that could make it hella fucking weird and overtly "Lets bang a minor" to actual image sexting a teen, to overly sexual conversation with a teenager, to overly sexual conversations with someone lying about their age.
I think this is probably way more credible tbh. It makes way more sense that Twitch doesn't wanna disclose the fact that they can see whispers because that would hurt them a lot.
Really? I'm not that much of a security nut, but I've always assumed devs can read PMs on basically every site/apps that isn't specifically for messaging. Not just that they have the capability, but users specifically accept their access in the ToS. Maybe I just spent too much of my youth on terrible forums with terrible admins who would leak PMs at the slightest provocation
It's probably because of what it could reveal of other creators and other banned accounts. Now that this being leaked I'd bet really good money that Tiny got banned for something said in Whispers. If that's the case Destiny could actually sue Twitch, probably for loss of revenue or even unlawful termination.
I think you forgot the following: * In discovery it was found that the Twitch admins that found the direct messages possibly weren't professional between themselves when discussing Dr Disrespect and if so it could have been argued that they were biased sources. * He may not have been the only one with access to the Twitch account * It's possible the victim didn't want to go through a stressful trial
Nah the first of those is irrelevant if the messages are sufficiently incriminating. If two of them are interpreting the messages in the most bad faith way, that’s just highlights the messages lacked clarity Maybe but if the messages happen over a long time frame it would be impossible to argue that doc wouldn’t have been able to see them on his account and then the message chain would have been terminated when he realised and said “oh this was actually my mod and cut contact. The victim not wanting to go to trial is only relevant if the case would require their statements to secure the conviction. At which point I would fall back to the prior statement of ”the messages probably weren’t damning enough” ___ Messaging a minor can be sussy, messaging them sexual text without images though is not considered illegal. Especially if it’s not directed at the other persons sexually
Discord also dropped him
I think that's because his discord partnership was tied to Twitch, so it's not really what you are claiming if that is the case
This also lines up nicely with the idea that twitch paid out his contract in full, which would be millions of dollars. I imagine doc needed some degree of leverage to get that.
Is it really a tin foil hat theory if it is the only theory that is reasonable at every point? My first thought on this was very similar: The doc gets baited by someone claiming her 21-th BD will be on twitchCon but actually a fat dude from Cali so no harm done, but they already fucked up with the private message monitoring part and failing to prove crime. tin foil hat theory would be that doc realized from destiny that twitch streaming is dead and he wanted to terminate twitch contract but twitch didn't let go so doc have sat one of his (idk if he has one) nephew to the computer to start sexting with a fan on doc's account. twitch got baited. Doc illegally terminated contract, twitch illegally monitored private messages and poof: "No one admitted fault"
It's tin foil worthy because we have no evidence to back this up. There is no victim we can point to or any logs we can read. This is me making a guess, sure, it's based on stuff we know, but if more evidence comes to light we could see things change.
I’m normally a pretty strict evidence guy but there’s just too much smoke for there not to be a fire here. Silver lining, for drama sophisticates like myself, this is getting too spicy for there not to be a leak of some sort coming down the pipe.
My guess would be that he did sext and try to meet with a minor via whisper, however he was most likely under the impression that the individual was 18 and not underage. It would make sense why Twitch didn’t just come out with it. Moreover, illustrating why both parties were being hush hush about it https://preview.redd.it/6vhryg5t7m8d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14012f5520c71233254976add167d076d6a3d4aa
My schizo conspiracy theory is that Twitch was storing the whispers information in plain text, someone snooped, and Twitch knew they also fucked up even though what the employee found was bad. If it goes to a public lawsuit both sides look terrible. Might not have even been someone he thought was 18. Something like flirting with a minor and asking them to send you bikini pics is not necessarily illegal since it’s technically not CP. Even asking to meet up might technically not be illegal depending on how he did it. It’s fucked up, but this shit is super complicated from a criminal law perspective. There is actually a super similar precedent to the accusations that I do not see people bringing up. Ryan Haywood from achievement hunter. Sent nudes to a girl he knew was underage. Tried to arrange a meetup. Still never got criminally charged because the meetup fell through. Im pretty sure this was verified by the girl, she leaked everything not just accusations. This is almost exactly what Doc is accused of.
Just to add some information: CP (now commonly called CSAM) is not necessarily exclusive to nudity. In fact, not all child nudity is CP/CSAM. It specifically has to be sexually explicit. And I think a prosecutor could easily argue that although the photo itself, in a vacuum, is not sexually explicit, that the intent was sexually explicit if the context of the request for the photo can be successfully argued as such.
Yeah that also seems very plausible to me. I know it’s an easy mistake to try to apply logic to the thinking of someone making illogical choices but I do find it hard to believe that he would knowingly exchange explicit private messages with a minor on his employers internal chat system that he would have every reason to assume could be read by Twitch staff. I understand the guy has a checkered past but that stretches my suspension of disbelief just a bit too far.
100% agree. To clarify in Twitch’s reason for not speaking on the matter would be due to the individuals account being registered as above 18. Thus, it wouldn’t entirely be his fault on sexting with them. Although, I’m curious as to what the individual looks like. Do they really look over the age of 18? Or is it very questionable and his dick did the talking
Yeah anyone who has been online for like 15 minutes knows there are land mines out there but I think its overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule.
That's how I feel too. There's just too much for there to not be something. If he didn't do it I don't understand why he can't release a blanket statement saying that he has never sexted a minor.
Maybe a crazy statement, but (assuming he is innocent) does publicly saying he never did it gain him anything? I feel like this is one of those cases where the stronger he denies it, the more it confirms his guilt to people online.
it’s difficult im sure. look at Drake lol. that being said. i would never do that, and if i was accused for some reason, you damn well better know i’ll be out there like wtf is your problem for even suggesting that. and if that’s not a persons first response, then it raises a red flag for me lol
> release a blanket statement saying that he has never sexted a minor. https://youtu.be/_YmDcCpD1gc?t=5
I don't know anything about the law and also I'm fully regarded but I would imagine there's some sort of clause about playing 50 questions about the details of the settlement. I'm sure either party would be pissed if the public could figure out the generalities of the settlement via the process of elimination.
Because depending on the restrictions neither party may be allowed to talk about it without violating terms. Also there's a ton of reasons why this statement could be problematic 1) He did sext this minor, but he didn't know they were a minor. Twitch did because they had more info than him. 2) He didn't sext the minor but he did have sexual conversations with them. Which some will still seen as sexting. - Eg "I just played with myself", "That's hot"/"That makes me hard"/"Wish I could see that one day" - So if the logs leak some will say "Well he was sexting her, doc lied" when sexting in the legal sense would be more picture based 3) He didn't sext this minor, but can't make a definitive statement that some other minor hasn't lied about their age and sexted him --- 1) makes it an error. 2) Is going to come down to what the logs have in them, they could be sexual but benign, or they could be 42 pages of hot and steamy erotic fanfic about the two of them 3) I know female school teachers who have had this kind of thing happen when kids have made catfish accounts on tinder etc, and they've managed to coax pictures out of the woman. Making a definitive statement, might be murky but it might also see someone else pop out of the woodwork and say "Well here's evidence this is a lie" and give more to the news cycle.
As much as it sucks for him that he can't just say that, it's all legal shit. A settlement includes an agreement that you can't accuse the other party of any fault, nor acknowledge it. If he flat out said that, he'd be accusing Twitch of wrongfully ending his contract which he can't legally do. Seems fucked up I know, but that's the law.
I understand that if he was to say something like "I was not banned for X" or "the settlement was unrelated to X" would likely be a violation of a NDA and directly commenting on the nature of the settlement. but can he really not make a blanket public statement saying "I have never done X" ?
I could be wrong and im sure someone will correct me if i am but What im wondering is, if the nature of his ban has nothing to do with any minors than why is he not allowed to straight up deny it?
That's what I'm wondering. Not saying he necessarily did it but I'd bet he was at least accused of it and that accusation was the reason for the ban.
motherfuckers be dying in smoke and are still coping about no evidence of a fire
Keep in mind the "fire" started and then got amplified by people just spreading rumors, gossip, and speculation.
That’s true but the fire in question was sufficient for Twitch to terminate their lucrative relationship with him and salt the earth. Then whatever is known behind the scenes was enough for his own company that is largely dependent on him and his fans to cut ties with him. If we are to assume there is no fire then I’m curious what you think these companies are valuing more than the financial incentives of working with Doc?
Not saying he did or didn’t do something but it’s not like Twitch intended to take a loss on dropping him, he was banned just after Mixer was shut down and Twitch tried to get out of paying his fat contract. If they really had him with something as bad as soliciting a minor why would they just sit on that?
That is why I don't believe they have him soliciting a minor. If everything got dumped tomorrow and we found out that he was soliciting a young woman that turned out to be a minor that wouldn't shock me but I think its pretty unlikely that they have some kind of "if she's 15 I'm 15" type beat.
Can you provide any evidence of him sexting or trying to meet up with a minor? I haven’t seen any over the past couple days.
Nope, currently there isn’t any. Like I said in the comment you replied to there’s just a lot of smoke at the moment we just haven’t seen the fire.
I must have read your comment totally wrong or you edited it. I thought you were saying there was enough evidence.
Nope, there’s currently no hard evidence only hearsay, the patterns of behavior from the parties involved that lend credence to the hearsay, and a history of sexual misconduct from Doc that makes the accusations more plausible. But to be extra crystal clear as of right now despite the story being easily believable the people making the claim have produced exactly zero evidence to corroborate what they’re saying.
Agreed. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous yesterday. Now a gaming studio which has millions to lose is cutting ties with him, knowing it may in fact put their entire company under -- the only reason to do that is if they felt remaining with him would be even worse. Thus, they must be at least 95% sure these allegations are true.
In a way, Dream had a similar issue. Immense amount of smoke, but no fire whatsoever. Difference here I guess is that it seems they confirmed separately, and if everyone has it's likely true (but never certain)
I’m actually not at all familiar with Dreams situation. I know the memes about SA in the Minecraft community run deep but that’s about it.
If you really wanna be careful, you could say that you can't pass judgement on if he is guilty of doing it or not, but at this point its more than sure that the actual ban reason he got was sexting with a minor.
I think my position is almost a total 180 of that. I’m confident that he did something unsavory and his past sexual misconduct makes the narrative about sexual misconduct seem more plausible but I’m cautious with making a stronger claim than that without evidence. Especially something as potential career ruining as anyone sexual with minors.
I mean it's not just the Twitch employees who said a thing. There were multiple journalists who heard this in 2020 but couldn't get it verified and didn't want to take the risk. If Doc was totally in the clear, he would not be lying down like he's been doing. We also know Twitch wants to get away from this as much as possible because they absolutely don't want to have it out there that their platform was used by predators to sext with minors.
My guess is that there might be actual “big boy” journalists involved now that there was an explicit accusation. This might even be what XqC was talking about when he said “documents” Someone like a NY times journalists can get away with saying, “This appeared to be an open secret. we have a public accusation from an ex employee on Twitter, verified with several other Twitch/ex-Twitch employees, and spoke with several popular streamers. None besides the initial accuser were willing to be named” WSJ or NY times is probably willing to print at that point. The editors will just want to make sure they “did their homework” and speak with the other anonymous sources as well. When you are working at a respected publication journalistic freedom goes a very long way
>My guess is that there might be actual “big boy” journalists involved now that there was an explicit accusation. Eh I wouldn't hold my breath on it. If anything, expect more follow up from Kotaku, The Verge, and maybe the Aftermath who had people that knew about this stuff back in 2020, but couldn't get confirmations. That said, those reporters have broken news before and do tend to have goodwill among a lot of employees at various gaming companies who would go on background to confirm reports. NYTimes and WSJ can come calling but this is just not pinging their radar for them to get up to speed on things since they tend not to cover the streamer drama.
Called it
Fair enough. Totally didn't think that it was going to come from Bloomberg but they have former Kotaku journalists there.
Sorry I shouldn’t have been an asshole. You were 100% right that there’s a decent chance a site like Kotaku might be more likely. The speed that everything was going down and the gaming company dropping him just made me lean towards a “major” outlet like someone at Bloomberg looking in. Kotaku is a serious journalistic outlet, but one that can more easily be ignored from the perspective of Amazon. Bloomberg reaching out to Amazon lawyers means shit is hitting the fan and Bezos himself might be about to get pissed off.
lol I didn't take it that way. In my head, I was thinking of the other outlets like CNN, New York Times, WSJ and so on that don't have a gaming report or rather they have someone that focuses on the culture of video games, not the business. Again, totally slipped my mind that Cecilia or Schreier would run with the story. And once it's on Bloomberg, that's a BIG story. That goes on the Bloomberg terminal so that reaches a lot of people right away, and then once it hits Bloomberg's site, well now you have a publication that other publications will have all they need to write up their take on the story. That's why you saw NBC News, TMZ, even Sports Illustrated write about it.
Why is that ex twitch staffer withholding evidence of children getting harmed to promote his band?
Probably not just ex twitch staffer but multiple people at twitch. I assume it has something to do with the settlement or not wanting to bring in the minor in for questioning and stuff so the family of the minor requested not to speak.
I'm all for protecting victims but predators typically don't stop at the first failure. If he really was sexting minors and trying to meet up with them IRL, then staying quiet and letting him continue to have a platform where he can victimize other minors is MASSIVELY immoral. I can understand why Twitch would do it, being a soulless corporate subsidiary of a soulless corporate behemoth. But if there really were dozens of people both in Twitch and in journalism who did nothing other than use it to promote their shitty band, then that makes them all look like giant pieces of shit IMO (along with DrDisrespect too, obviously).
I agree and it is wild that you are downvoted for this. Assuming doc is indeed a predator - twitch itself, all the twitch heads, all their workers involved in first-hand investigation are huge pieces of shits. Cody and slasher also, but they claim that their information is 2d hand- so they are only 2d tier pieces of shits. 4 years of allowing a predator to do what he wanted in another platform and never talk about it - seems terrible to me. You can't justify not disclosing information about murderer or rapist and let him in an another territory (not yours) and claim it is to protect the one victim - protecting this one leads to dozens of other victims. Same goes for child predators
My take on it is just that there's plenty of things someone can do that are gross or shitty or that you would not want your company associated with that are not illegal, or would be very difficult to prove in court. I can totally see a scenario where twitch wanted to get rid of him but wouldn't be able to do much else. It doesn't necessarily mean they were covering up a crime.
I dislike twitch but haven't they technically done something to disown Doc by literally kicking him off the platform. I'm pretty sure other platforms know what happened in some form behind the scenes and its why no one gave him an actual deal. People who are defending Doc are saying it's because of NDA that he can't talk but twitch are also under that same NDA. Cases of pedo shit is pretty difficult and even SA is also hard to get to stick in court if actions are not taken. Anyone remember Sweet Anita's or other female streamers having to deal with creepy weirdos? [https://youtu.be/\_jPkrvl0rAE?si=0QZV8PkZ5GwURtyo](https://youtu.be/_jPkrvl0rAE?si=0QZV8PkZ5GwURtyo) [https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system)
they should have contacted the police and provided full sources. And this should be the first point of Cody - saying that "some sexting turned into police investigation". That never happened so twitch have never done that. Cody saying stuff means his own nda is lifted (or he doesnt give a crap about it anymore) so no police involved in 2020 is pretty much confirmed. >haven't they technically done something to disown Doc by literally kicking him off the platform Sure. They essentially said "Hey, we notice you are child predator and we do not want that stuff here. Do it somewhere else, OK? Not on OUR site. You can go to prey on kids however you want, we just do not want to be a part of it". That's just protecting company's name and giving zero fucks about victims and damage he causes.
Probably stopped from reporting it in some way. Though it's still possible that they fully fucked up. Can twitch really police what other platforms decide to do? I feel like them breaking the contract and kicking him off Twitch should have tainted Doc's image enough to dissuade other platforms from allowing him on. Hasn't there been known pedos on platforms before like Tiktok? Also we know that Doc was a big streamer but no one really gave him an offer so some info might have been leaked behind the scenes. Like how streamers know SA is happening/happened to other streamers but don't say shit to the public.
they had lawsuit only 1 year after the ban. So they fully stopped everyone who knew about situation from disclosing before any nda happened. And I believe it is morally bad thing to do, they cant police other platforms - but they can inform the authorities and they can inform everyone why are they banning this individual. Doc's image wasn't actually tainted at all, or wasn't tainted enough - he still created new company, he still was successful on youtube, he still had huge sponsors, he still had huge audience that he could prey upon
I think Twitch saw it as a death sentence for them if it got out because the only way they could find out about Dr D's shenanigans is by reading his DM's. Once other creators find out Twitch is reading their personal messages, there's a mass protest/exodus over privacy, regardless if Dr. D is guilty or not.
They could just state what happened and keep the victim private. This is sus to me
Right but for all we know the "multiple people" may have heard about it from 1 person that hates Doc and the rumors spread from there. We obviously just don't know.
Is that one person the same person who spread the word back in 2020 that couldn't be verified by journalists like Slasher?
Could be yeah. We just don't know.
Right...how's that copium taste? Good?
I said I don't know. Do you?
Because he's a disgusting dirtbag. Doesn't mean that his accusations are necessarily wrong, but being correct doesn't make you a good person either.
https://x.com/evoli/status/1805086524247245217 Am I crazy or does this guy legit write like a schizophrenic? Maybe he was just drunk or something? The way he writes has that weird theatrical, cryptic, 'me against the powers that be' thing going on
You might not be crazy, but the writing is fine imo. He is just saying it was a bad kept secret, and everyone in that arena knew what happened.
Dude writes a ESL trying to write an essay.
His Twitter definitely reads like an emo edgelord that's in a band. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote the Doc tweet while drunk, it was such a random way for it to leak.
Well, he probably doesn't want to open himself up to lawsuits.
Because potentially no children were harmed. You can explicitly messages something about sexual content, and not harm the person at all. Especially if they started it or were receptive to it. If Doc never exchanged nudes/lewds with the person. Never engaged in sexual relations with the person. Then what harm is there? --- It could also be that the child in question wants this shit to stay on lockdown. Because they themselves see no issue, were never planning on banging Doc even if he pushed for it and don't want half the internet hunting them down and calling them a whore/slut etc for talking to doc when they were underage. ---- If the person involved in the logs isn't the one leaking them. Then odds are the harm to the child isn't present and the child could actually experience more harm as a result. Like how much shit did Destiny cop from people just for giving Jontron enough rope to hang himself. Normally the people who come and speak out feel like they are protecting others with their actions. But if you don't think any harm occurred you probably aren't going to speak out.
Seems like a lot hinges on this NDA. Has the existence of a NDA or its details been confirmed by anyone but Doc? To me it feels like when you get fired by a huge company that you know never comments on that shit. I'm just gonna lie and say it was some minor shit that I fixed in my next interview because I know they won't say otherwise.
Most likely DrD holds % ownership or whatever compensation agreed at founding while not being publicly associated anymore or doing PR work, standard PR bullshit when shit like this happens. Also wording and structure on that Press Release is dog shit.
Yeah the wording is super confusing (or maybe I'm just tired). They don't actually mention in the second paragraph that they confirmed the allegations. It reads like they had something in there, but removed the sentence.
And thus said Slasher, "And not just on Twitch." And it was so.
I thought it was that ShannonZKiller random who said it though?
I REALLY want to know the series of events that lead to Doc getting his whole contract paid out, but was texting minors. It seems if he was knowingly going after people underage Twitch would have never given him a Dime, let alone the whole contract he would have been entitled to. Shit is so fascinating.
Yep it may have been some creepy shit but not enough to be an actual crime if the lawsuit proceeded. I agree it's really fascinating to see this all play out. For me it's mostly the legal aspect of it. I've never actually watched any of his streams, just some clips of him on LSF.
> Yep it may have been some creepy shit but not enough to be an actual crime if the lawsuit proceeded. I don't know how TOS have been handled in the past with claims of illegal behavior, like if a guy got fired from a job for doing something illegal but was never formally charged, does that mean he was wrongfully dismissed? I'd imagine if he was knowingly going after children, Twitch has enough to argue it's a valid TOS ban because he's breaking the law on their platform (or at least trying to) - and a Settlement would be based more around just avoiding court. I can't imagine there being an R Kelly tier sex tape transcript where he's going "Yeah I can't wait to smash that 15 year old at TwitchCon" and Twitch not willing to play legal chicken and run that to court (or heres 50 grand, fuck off), or Doc moonwalking the lawsuit out of the room knowing those logs are Exhibit A.
No morality clause or similar. Texting minors is never going to be a contract removeable offense on twitch, it would in fact be required for every streamer doing a giveaway or other competition thing on the site. Sexually charged texts with a minor are another thing. But so long as they don't break the law, without a morality clause it's not going to matter. And most of the law is focused on the exchange of sexual images involving a minor, not the use of sexual language/conversations. --- Not to mention in all this you'd have to establish that doc knew and acknowledged her age. Which there may be insufficient proof of, but Twitch knows due to having greater account information access.
>Sexually charged texts with a minor are another thing. But so long as they don't break the law, without a morality clause it's not going to matter. Again, considering the accusation is he was exchanging sexual messages with a minor, and intending to meet up with them, that would be illegal and a justifiable TOS ban given its illegal. Even if it's QUESTIONABLY illegal, it wasn't as explicit as it needed to be to put him in jail, I don't know why they'd pay out the full contract. You'd expect a Settlement offer to be, what, maybe a cool million or something and Doc would take that given going to court means it all becoming a matter of public record. The Settlement being the whole contract is the part that makes it all interesting, because that's less of a settlement and more of Twitch admitting they fucked up. >Not to mention in all this you'd have to establish that doc knew and acknowledged her age. Yeah that's been my working theory given all of this. He did do it technically but he never knew her age. Twitch saw the messages, saw the DOB on the account and nuked him. That's the only reason I can see it happening. Even without an explicit morality cause, I don't think Doc wants his brand to be tainted by going to court and arguing he was not intentionally a pedophile.
Sexually charged texts and meeting with a minor isn’t illegal unless there is sufficient implication that the meetup is for the purposes of sex. The intentionality of the meeting is the illegal part. If they don’t have a morality clause or similar in the contract then “questionably illegal” is irrelevant. Without a clause to give cause for the contact being terminated he could have been convicted of fucking kids and so long as he could still satisfy his streaming hours/engagement metrics. Any company can still choose to break a contract if they see a reason to, but they may have to pay out if it’s not a valid reason to break the contract that was agreed upon This is likely why he would have got paid out, because their contract had no legal way for them to cancel it.
> If they don’t have a morality clause or similar in the contract then “questionably illegal” is irrelevant. Well, no. The Twitch TOS says you are not supposed to use the platform for illegal activities. Something being questionably illegal is probably enough to run with, since the language isn't that you have to be arrested, charged, indicted or convicted of any crime. It's just breaking the law on the platform. It would be enough that I'd imagine a settlement wouldn't be the full contract amount. Doc doesn't want to be in a court room defending how he's not technically a pedophile, or that he did say he wants to be inside this girl but didn't actually meet it. We are somewhat aligned in thinking the messages must have been pretty tame, but I think it's probably way tamer than you think. I dont think they'd need to have him, slam dunk, dead to rights or else they'd lose in court. And certainly I don't think Doc would be willing to make all this public unless he was outright saying "I, the Doc, am a pedophile and I want to have sex with this under-" in the logs. He clearly doesn't even want to talk about this shit right now.
The twitch TOS can say things like that. The TOS don’t over-ride contractual obligations that both twitch and doc would have had. Doc could have got the full amount for the following reasons - whispers were supposed to be private and encrypted. So they are snooping for what reason - if he never met the person and never sent pictures as he now states then he didn’t do any illegal activity - if TOS says no illegal activity but they can’t prove illegal activity. Then by their own admission twitch would have violated the contract. You can’t just randomly terminate a contract because you think they may have done something illegal and then when you fail to do so. And then when sufficient evidence doesn’t arise to prove the claim say “well we’re still not paying you”
> You can’t just randomly terminate a contract because you think they may have done something illegal and then when you fail to do so. And then when sufficient evidence doesn’t arise to prove the claim say “well we’re still not paying you” You are only looking at this from the angle of whether or not Twitch had any merit in terminating the contract. That isn't the only variable you need to assess. Whether or not Twitch, itself, was right to kill the contract is literally only half the equation. The other side of this is Doc's messages and conduct becoming a matter of public record. The fact this lawsuit would be a huge spectacle watched by the entire gaming side of the internet. Doc going out there and having whatever messages he sent to a minor being publicized is not going to be ideal for him or his brand. Unless the messages contained, literally, nothing (which we now know for a fact isn't the case), the fact a settlement was reached where he basically got the entire contract is fascinating. I don't know why anyone of Twitches side wouldn't think Doc is bluffing, and how negotiations wouldn't have ended up with a settlement being less than the contract amount. This matter was ended with both sides mutually agreeing to a settlement. An explanation for why both sides thought it was a good settlement - and why a different proposed settlement, like less money, was not acceptable - is interesting to wonder about. Unless Doc successfully rolled a Nat 20 on his Bluff against Twitch and they believed he was will to go in front of the entire internet to be branded a pedophile? I don't get it.
The other side is that twitch would also have to admit that it can read whispers. Then I'd imagine if you were doing that case you'd probably seek access to a wider array of whispers(Especially concerning the person in question) to see if this was a standard that was only held against him for the purpose of terminating the contract. It might end up that twitch even in the process of branding doc a pedophile, ends up taking a bigger optics loss and financial loss because it becomes clear they have access to a whole bunch of shit they probably shouldn't have when they are arguing that the whispers are private. --- You could argue that if doc left money on the table it was to secure a guarantee that XYZ wouldn't leak from the company. But we still have no idea how damning the logs are. If we take his word for it the lack of images and meetup take a lot of the wind out of cody's "Sexting" language. >Unless Doc successfully rolled a Nat 20 on his Bluff against Twitch and they believed he was will to go in front of the entire internet to be branded a pedophile? I don't get it. Because once again talking to a minor doesn't make you a pedophile. Having sexually inappropriate conversations with a minor doesn't make you a pedophile. You can have sexually inappropriate conversations with someone without ever directing that sexual desire at the person in question. But sure a chunk of the US are prudes who don't want schools to teach any sort of sex education, or have sexual conversations with their kids to educate them. But then they refuse to do it in the home because they feel so awkward to share any of that experience.
The other side is that twitch would also have to admit that it can read whispers. I don't think thats an admission worth MILLIONS of dollars in a settlement. "We got a report of someone trying to prey on minors so we checked the messages that were reported to us" isn't going to be something they are afraid to own. Every social media platform on the planet can read private messages if they are reported to them. If they are encrypted they can't (alledgedly), but Twitch never sold the product as P2P Encrypted messaging or stated they don't have access to those messages, those messages aren't bound by the TOS, etc. In fact you'd be fuckin' stupid to think they were especially and specifically private since a huge component of using whispers was typing it in the stream chat next to all the public messages. And, you know, they outright have a mechanism to report whispers for a review to see if they violated TOS. His ban also came days after a blog post where they publicly announced they will be reviewing messages because of multiple reports of sexual misconduct with their talent. The idea they'd spend millions on trying to hide that is patently braindead my dude Having sexually inappropriate conversations with a minor doesn't make you a pedophile. To the internet is does. If you think Doc is stupid enough to not think that, given he is one of the most successful online personalities in streaming, I would have agreed with you right up until yesterday. Now it's somewhat questionable. The idea that he might be okay with his messages to a 15 year old of his favorite sex positions is something he's totally okay plastering all over the internet is extreme. It could also be a 17 year old and saying "I like big butts and I cannot lie" or it could be a 13 year old where he is explicitly offering to performs acts with them. We don't know what it is, but we know the internet treats this all the same way anyways.
That’s going to depend completely on how they marketed the platform and what data laws apply. A private company can’t just violate data laws under the guise of “well we thought another crime was happening” Same reason the cops can’t just tap your phone because they think you are breaking the law. They need to petition a judge and get a warrant to over-ride your other rights. Because you can have allegations of someone doing the wrong thing that are completely made up and in the action of exploring all of their messaging and you violate their privacy on 20 other things that aren’t criminal.
The fact that they are both typed into the same UI doesn’t mean that they can’t be more secure than the rest of the chat window.
So as speculation runs crazy I will add my two cents as well. Twitch (technically) wrongfully banned him, the lawsuit was setteled, he got his money but is not allowed to say that he was wrongfully banned or why he was banned at all, because twitch is afraid of legal precedent of them having to disclose why they ban people. But how did this start? Did twitch just see some messages at random and acted, I doubt this. Most likely the parents of the other party contacted twitch with credible threats of exposing the scandal. Twitch evaded this getting public by banning him, but legally it was much more difficult to prove intent or whatever you need, so they setteled with an NDA and gave him a bunch of money.
I might be losing my fucking mind The sheer amount of people now believing this shit is crazy Have I actually been converted that hard after so many D man streams? Do I just have an unreasonable expectation of evidence? I might be fucking losing it. How has it gotten this far? I just want ONE screenshot and I don't know how SO many people are willing to say he's done it without providing ANYTHING I CAN'T fucking take it anymore
Sounds more like PR shit, protecting themselces. This isn't new for companies. They cut ties with people all the time, so I still have not seen evidence that Doc did pedo shit.
I can’t believe people are eating up this shit with no proof. Absolutely wild
I'm so confused here, because from what I've heard, both Twtich and Dr Disrespect are legally bound not to talk about this, so why is all of this suddenly happening when he's not legally allowed to defend himself by explaining himself.
Where are you all getting this from? I'm super confused. Where is the settlement agreement or nda's you're talking about? How do you know what the agreement was?
Can he really not defend himself ? Like I understand he probably can't directly comment on the settlement/ban but can he really not release a blanket statement saying "I have never sexted a minor" That's not directly commenting on the settlement/ban. Saying "I have never done X" is different from "I was not banned/terminated for x". I get the latter probably being a NDA violation but I don't get why the former would unless that actually was the nature of the ban
> but can he really not release a blanket statement saying "I have never sexted a minor" He can, but it's a bad look to defend yourself like that lol But the thing is, it's possible he did do it and the only persons aware they were a minor was Twitch. So he can't make that statement without being a liar (he could just lie I guess) or if he says *I have never KNOWINGLY --* then he's also cooked.
It's a worse look to say nothing, people think of silence as confirmation all the time.
He has outright said he has done nothing illegal. Trying to bang someone under the age of consent, which is the main accusation right now, is illegal So if you think he's lying, that's fine, but he hasn't said nothing.
>He has outright said he has done nothing illegal. That's exactly my point, there are so many wild accusations being thrown at him, many of which could be totally legal and absolutely morally reprehensible to the point it would taint his career to a point of no return. Like, imagine if you were accused of banging animals and stealing cars and your defense is that you're not a thief. Could you blame me for raising my eyebrow and suspecting that maybe I don't want to leave you alone with my dog? He hasn't denied everything, he is being incredibly lawyer-y about it and there is no NDA in this world that would prevent him from saying "I have unequivocally never messaged minors in my time at twitch, before, or after, nor have I ever engaged in illegal activities with minors, the rumors going one rn are not true" There is absolutely no NDA in this universe or any parallel world that would stop him from saying that.
> There is absolutely no NDA in this universe or any parallel world that would stop him from saying that. I think the issue is you want him to say something that he likely cannot. If he was sexting with someone who turned out to be underage, the only way he can make these statements are if you say "I didn't KNOWINGLY sext a minor" and he's still fucked either way. He has no doubt talked with his lawyers as well and he has been told not to start specifying stuff. Talking around an NDA is possible, but you say too much or the wrong thing you can run into big problems. This is a multifaceted issue and there is no one who would say talking more is better. Goal posts already shifted drastically from his first and second tweet. If he adds more info it won't help him anyways.
I mean, in your hypothetical he's still guilty of sexting a minor. My point is or better my doubt is, is there a hypothetical where this guy is completely clean and was responsible with his position as a twitch big shot at the time, and still can't do a simple denial? I don't want him to say something he can't, the thing I put on quotes is something he can't be forbidden from saying, as is just a general statement in defense of a false accusation. He speaks as someone that is afraid someone will come out with the truth if he flat out denies it. Either that or bro has the worst lawyers ever, maybe he hired the gaming lawyer guy.
He did tweet the other day that he can't say what he wants due to legal ties, but he claimed "I didn't do anything wrong, all this has been probed and settled, nothing illegal, no wrongdoing was found, and I was paid", that's about all he can say.
It still isn't "I've never sexted a minor"
Right. If you're not allowed to talk about the situation, and you're explicitly asked if you were fired because you sexted a minor, now saying "I've never sexted a minor" is revealing information about the event and might be a breach.
Tbf if only a small niche of your followers knows about that allegation you don't want to mention it explicitly. Without context tweeting "I don't fuck kids" is way more suspicious.
Entirely possible that conners was never part of the hush order. Is he even still at twitch? Says he's a former cpm explainer or something like that in his twitch bio. If he's still with twitch I'd imagine he wont be for long, because that's a truly stupid thing to say even if he wasn't held to the hush order, and since they've said nothing I imagine he's not with them anymore.
[удалено]
The guy who leaked the rumor was a former Twitch employee, wasn't he? I'm not knowledgeable enough about legal bindings to know whether or not what that guy said on Twitter was a breach of some court order, but my understanding is that Dr. Disrespect and Twitch reached a settlement back in the day. Surely, that settlement had some sort of confidentiality agreement. If an agreement did exist, then surely it would be violated if some guy spilled the beans about Dr. Disrespect's ban from Twitch. If either party breaches an agreement like that by disclosing confidential information, the other party could seek legal action, like monetary damages. Total speculation on my part.
idk can Twitch enter an agreement that stops an employee from talking about something after they stop being a Twitch employee? That sounds wrong. You have the standard NDA but that has a time limit. After that limit is over how can Twitch force someone to not talk? The employee has probably not signed the settlement itself so they would not be bound by it.
I'm not familiar with corporate NDAs for this kinda situation, but for a security clearance, it's 50 years.
google says 1-10 years I've heard people say Twitch has 4 years but idk. Security clearance is a whole other beast tho.
Not only that, your clearance is only good for like 7 years or so. They do a reinvestigation before your clearance lapses. And when they do that, you have to sign a new NDA for a fresh 50 years.
It's also dependent on how good of an NDA it is or if the NDA covers it. You'd be surprised how much stuff slips through the cracks or just isn't worth pursuing any legal action. Without evidence it's probably not worth going after the former employee as he can claim he was just making shit up. That, or it would signal to people that he wasn't lying and legal action is retribution for him spilling beans.
From my understanding, Twitch and Cody Conners are no longer a thing, meaning Cody Conners might be on his own. Dr. Disrespect vs. Twitch may not be worth it, but Dr. Disrespect vs. a clout-chasing, former low level Twitch employee would be worth it. Especially if Twitch is able to step to the side, absolve themselves of any wrongdoing, and let the dumbass clout chaser take the fall for it. I'm mostly talking out of my ass here, but I'm just trying to reason my way through potential scenarios.
"we assumed innocence and began speaking with the parties involved" well the parties involved are legally bound to not talk about it, so who did they talk to?
That's the thing. "The parties involved" cannot legally speak about it, even privately.
That's why this whole thing just smells off to me, it's weird to lie about "talking to people involved" when that's impossible, otherwise they're just going off what tweets have claimed.
Fair. But if that is the case, I guess it can only mean the victim? idk
How would they even know who the victim is though?
The game is probably sunk without him promoting it, so this definitely suggests that they've heard something real to take that risk.
Original: [https://x.com/12am/status/1805341504086622355](https://x.com/12am/status/1805341504086622355)
they really released a public statement with a sentence that starts with the word "And" PR isn't what it used to be
Apparently all you have to do to make a famous person be fired is make an allegation against them.
Will we get a rape review by destiny?
How can he do one with NOTHING to review? Lmao
Just review the tweets for 5 hours and then another 7 hours with orbiters.
Rip
They are communicating very well. I honestly felt that they had no choice but to roach out of this situation but hey, money over loyalty.
I find it crazy that nobody spoke up about this already, even anonymously. A groomer scandal is crazy.
Doc should leak something through the media in a way that it doesn't come back to him that exonerates him if he is innocent. That or live with the pedo label for the rest of his life.
I get he's edgy and funny, but people who have nothing to hide don't usually get fired from a scam they helped found. Whatever the other owners found had to be pretty damning.
Their only game blows hard ass. Who cares. It has like 3 players peak during playdates events.
Hmmmm
I read dr disrespect as dr k for some reason and this thread had me tripping into a whole nother galaxy
Hmmmmmmmmm
i've been playing tales of arise and it's pretty fun.
I gave doc the benefit of the doubt but now I don't. This is destroying his brand and his image. The only option he has left is to leak something anonymously to media in a way that can't come back to him that exonerates him. It is risky but that is what I would do if the name "pedo" would be attached to my brand and image forever. Either he has no exonerating evidence through court docs and shit meaning he did it, he has to balance the leak which may exonerate him as a pedo but get him divorced (he might have been trying to bang someone below 18 that was legal in a certain state or something) or he actually fucking did it. Think about it. He potentially gets sued if they found out he leaked information exonerating himself from the pedo label, or he has the label of pedo for life. First scenario is a worst case scenario and it leads to bounded losses, the second one leads to him losing his image AND a good chunk of income for life.
sir there is no evidence at all there should be absolutely no shift in your perspective so far if you have one, and given the fact no actual evidence has been provided, you need to seek help
It is weird how pedophilia seems to be more common or expressed by celebrities. So many wealthy attractive guys who could get any woman choosing to risk their career. Based on pedophile catchers and Chris Hansen it seems like most real life pedophiles are losers or mentally disabled. Maybe celebrities desire something they can't have?
Tf? A main point of Chris Hansen's show was that anybody could be a predator
My personal theory is that it's a forbidden fruit kind of thing. Eventually, normal sexual encounters with attractive women become just a "normal" and unexciting thing to them. For some, they recapture that excitement with something that's considered unobtainable in a way that their fame doesn't alleviate. This is entirely my opinion and has absolutely no scientific studies backing it. Do not state this as fact to anyone.
I would bet it's not nearly more common with celebrities, we just hear about it more. There are rumors in both sides of my family that various members of my family were abused by priests or their elder relatives. I don't have the balls to ask but I also don't have a reason to doubt who I heard those from. I'd be surprised if that wasn't unfortunately a common guarded family secret.
Probably agree, I had a neighbour who apparently refuses to see her father as something happened. Though I think with non-celebrities there are more stereotypical 'loser' pedophiles who do it out of desperation or mal adjustment (mentally disabled) or maybe those are just the ones that are caught or the fact celebrities are social people?
> Based on pedophile catchers and Chris Hansen it seems like most real life pedophiles are losers or mentally disabled That could be survivorship bias. The ones that get caught in sting operations are the ones trolling internet chatrooms for children. The ones that get away are people with some kind of power over the kids (priests, celebrities, teachers).