Vic Mignogna

[Dragon Wukong]

Just gonna toss in my two cents. I think Vic Mignogna is creepy and acts inappropriately around his generally underage fanbase. That much is clearly true. Getting "glomped" by 13 year old girls is just weird. I believe stories that he's a diva or a pain in the ass to work with. In addition to that, the guy gets a ton of hate for the aforementioned reputation and stuff about being against gay marriage or whatnot. (I don't have an issue with that, sometimes things conflict with your beliefs and considering the guy is a hard christian I respect his decision to be against it, not like it affects anything else.)

That being said, some allegations, like Jessie Pridemore's for instance, do seem to be false based on that fact she was talking about Todd Haberkorn as well, and Todd Haberkorn provided some evidence through texts between them that put those allegations into question IMO.

Like I dunno. I really wanna hear what happened to Monica Rial. I know Vic is a creepy kinda dude, he hugs and kisses inappropriately from what I can see. There's lots of reasons to dislike or even hate the guy. But unless he's a rapist or legitimate molestor, something I currently doubt anyhow, I don't think he should lose his job.

That's just my two cents anyways. Whether he gets replaced or not ultimately doesn't affect me (despite my Broly profile pic.)

[JulieYBM]

Vignogna and Taberkorn are thankfully being removed from fandom spaces. I hope that remains so for our continued safety. I hope it becomes feasible to prosecute them in court.

[Selsiuss]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

[JulieYBM]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

Kanzenshuu is a small community, not a large social media platform like Twitter. The spirit of free speech is not being violated.

[ABED]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

Freedom of speech doesn't apply in this context. You have the right to say what you want, but people don't have to give you the forum (in this case literally) to say it. It's no different from your home. It's your property and you set the rules.

[ShadowBardock89]

That being said, some allegations, like Jessie Pridemore's for instance, do seem to be false based on that fact she was talking about Todd Haberkorn as well, and Todd Haberkorn provided some evidence through texts between them that put those allegations into question IMO.

If you haven't already, please read Adam Sheehan's tweets:
https://twitter.com/neumaverick/status/ ... 5006524416

[Fionordequester]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

From what I can see, they only got banned after a long period of circular back-and-forth arguments; and most of them didn't have terribly well thought out posts either.

Seriously, you can even see me openly challenging VegettoEX on the first page; yet nothing bad's happened to me.

[Selsiuss]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

From what I can see, they only got banned after a long period of circular back-and-forth arguments; and most of them didn't have terribly well thought out posts either.

Seriously, you can even see me openly challenging VegettoEX on the first page; yet nothing bad's happened to me.

There have been people that got banned after only a few posts in this thread. You also have been here since 2011 so they would be more lenient towards you due to seniority; don't want to lose a long-time member.

[Fionordequester]

There have been people that got banned after only a few posts in this thread.

That's because this thread has gotten large enough that questions like "where's the evidence?", "did you know the photos were photo-shopped", and "why haven't more victims reported" are getting more and more silly. You'd have to be ignoring what's right in front of you in the thread.

[Selsiuss]

There have been people that got banned after only a few posts in this thread.

That's because this thread has gotten large enough that questions like "where's the evidence?", "did you know the photos were photo-shopped", and "why haven't more victims reported" are getting more and more silly. You'd have to be ignoring what's right in front of you in the thread.

Maybe people jumped into the last page.

[Fionordequester]

Maybe people jumped into the last page.

Well...I mean, you kind of have a responsibility to read the thread, see if your questions were already answered, don't you? Or failing that, just say "hey, I haven't read the thread; does anyone have an answer for X or X?"

[Kunzait_83]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

This isn't a publicly-owned forum: its under private ownership. The site's owner can do with it basically whatever the hell he wants (within legal reason at least, obviously), and lay down whatever rules and throw out whichever individuals he chooses. He's under zero obligation whatsoever to uphold anyone's content standards but his own. If the way he chooses to run his own site bothers you: there's the door.

Don't even try to turn this into a "My free speech rights!" issue. Most free speech laws only apply to PUBLIC spaces, NOT those that are privately owned (see also: Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc). So unless you want to make the case that Kanzenshuu, a fucking fan site dedicated to a 30 year old Japanese children's comic/cartoon, should somehow become a government-owned and operated platform, then this doesn't in any way qualify as "censorship" (within the sort of context that you're clearly implying at least) in any meaningful sense.

This isn't any different than when a restaurant owner decides to kick out a patron that he feels is being disruptive and rude to other customers: no private owner of any patronized space (real world or digital) is under ANY obligation whatsoever to put up with any nonsense he or she doesn't feel like dealing with.

[WittyUsername]

I’m just stopping by right now to say one last thing: this whole situation is, for lack of a better term, a complete clusterfuck. Between the allegations against Mignogna, the allegations against Todd Haberkorn, the reported attempts at falsifying evidence to make Mignogna look worse than he already does, the allegations against one of the people who accused Mignogna of being a jerk (Neil Kaplan), and the responses from Mignogna’s fellow VAs, this whole thing is just a complete and utter shit show, and the heated arguments in this thread aren’t helping matters. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but by God, this is making me miss the days when the biggest Dragon Ball related controversy was the season sets.

I know people thought I was being ridiculous when I said that I don’t want to be supporting Dragon Ball for the time being, but this past week has convinced me more than ever that I would be better off staying the hell away from this franchise until this mess settles down. I don’t want to have to deal with the baggage of contributing to the success of a series that’s connected to a company with this much drama behind it.

[Selsiuss]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

This isn't a publicly-owned forum: its under private ownership. The site's owner can do with it basically whatever the hell he wants (within legal reason at least, obviously), and lay down whatever rules and throw out whichever individuals he chooses. He's under zero obligation whatsoever to uphold anyone's content standards but his own. If the way he chooses to run his own site bothers you: there's the door.

Don't even try to turn this into a "My free speech rights!" issue. Most free speech laws only apply to PUBLIC spaces, NOT those that are privately owned (see also: Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc). So unless you want to make the case that Kanzenshuu, a fucking fan site dedicated to a 30 year old Japanese children's comic/cartoon, should somehow become a government-owned and operated platform, then this doesn't in any way qualify as "censorship" (within the sort of context that you're clearly implying at least) in any meaningful sense.

This isn't any different than when a restaurant owner decides to kick out a patron that he feels is being disruptive and rude to other customers: no private owner of any patronized space (real world or digital) is under ANY obligation whatsoever to put up with any nonsense he or she doesn't feel like dealing with.

If they're going to ban people, they should issue warnings for frowned-upon or disallowed posts beforehand. Give them 1 warning, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. But no, insta-banned, no warning.

[Dragon Wukong]

That being said, some allegations, like Jessie Pridemore's for instance, do seem to be false based on that fact she was talking about Todd Haberkorn as well, and Todd Haberkorn provided some evidence through texts between them that put those allegations into question IMO.

If you haven't already, please read Adam Sheehan's tweets:
https://twitter.com/neumaverick/status/ ... 5006524416

Man, reading through that it does sound kinda bad. But at the same time, even though she had a lot to drink it seems ambiguous to me, especially given the texts between them where they had talked about hooking up. It doesn't help that I know someone who's had a similar reaction she had to regretting a drunken but otherwise consensual hook-up. I'm not saying what she said happened didn't happen, but I do have a doubt.

[JulieYBM]

There are multiple in-thread and private warnings issued.

[Kunzait_83]

There have been people that got banned after only a few posts in this thread. You also have been here since 2011 so they would be more lenient towards you due to seniority; don't want to lose a long-time member.

This is even MORE ridiculous, and is the sort of paranoid "conspiracy theorizing" that's lead to a couple of other nutbars on this forum cyberstalking me off-site for several months awhile back when one of the mods just happened to close down a similarly heated and politically controversial thread that I just happened to have one of the last posts in, leading to similarly harebrained "Ah ha! The mods and long-standing members of this forum are secretly in on some kind of backroom scheme against the more casual forum members who say opinions they don't agree with!"

As someone who's been an on and off regular on this forum since literally its first year, allow me to preempt that nonsense thusly: no, that is NOT how this site is run. There is ZERO "co-ordination" and absolutely NO "unspoken agreement" between Mike, the other mods, or the more active members to "selectively pick on" certain community members who's views they don't agree on. Neither myself, nor any of the other older forum members have ANY such relationship with the owner or the other mods.

Trust me: if you get banned on this site, odds are you probably did something REALLY shitty to warrant it, since this site's mods are normally INSANELY lenient and RARELY hand out bans willy-nilly, and are known to even give some of the most annoying trolls chance after chance after chance to redeem themselves.

[Kamiccolo9]

Is no one going to acknowledge the fact that those that have been skeptical of the allegations have been banned? It screams censorship.

This isn't a publicly-owned forum: its under private ownership. The site's owner can do with it basically whatever the hell he wants (within legal reason at least, obviously), and lay down whatever rules and throw out whichever individuals he chooses. He's under zero obligation whatsoever to uphold anyone's content standards but his own. If the way he chooses to run his own site bothers you: there's the door.

Don't even try to turn this into a "My free speech rights!" issue. Most free speech laws only apply to PUBLIC spaces, NOT those that are privately owned (see also: Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc). So unless you want to make the case that Kanzenshuu, a fucking fan site dedicated to a 30 year old Japanese children's comic/cartoon, should somehow become a government-owned and operated platform, then this doesn't in any way qualify as "censorship" (within the sort of context that you're clearly implying at least) in any meaningful sense.

This isn't any different than when a restaurant owner decides to kick out a patron that he feels is being disruptive and rude to other customers: no private owner of any patronized space (real world or digital) is under ANY obligation whatsoever to put up with any nonsense he or she doesn't feel like dealing with.

If they're going to ban people, they should issue warnings for frowned-upon or disallowed posts beforehand. Give them 1 warning, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. But no, insta-banned, no warning.

You don't know what kinds of warnings have already been issued. Mike, etc., don't generally announce strikes against specific members publicly.

That being said, Mike has announced that strikes and warnings have been being issued since early on in this thread. People have been warned.

[Selsiuss]

There have been people that got banned after only a few posts in this thread. You also have been here since 2011 so they would be more lenient towards you due to seniority; don't want to lose a long-time member.

This is even MORE ridiculous, and is the sort of paranoid "conspiracy theorizing" that's lead to a couple of other nutbars on this forum cyberstalking me off-site for several months awhile back when one of the mods just happened to close down a similarly heated and politically controversial thread that I just happened to have one of the last posts in, leading to similarly harebrained "Ah ha! The mods and long-standing members of this forum are secretly in on some kind of backroom scheme against the more casual forum members who say opinions they don't agree with!"

As someone who's been an on and off regular on this forum since literally its first year, allow me to preempt that nonsense thusly: no, that is NOT how this site is run. There is ZERO "co-ordination" and absolutely NO "unspoken agreement" between Mike, the other mods, or the more active members to "selectively pick on" certain community members who's views they don't agree on. Neither myself, nor any of the other older forum members have ANY such relationship with the owner or the other mods.

They don't have to deliberately be "in cahoots" with each other. Rather, they'd simply give longer-standing members the benefit of the doubt by their own preference.

Trust me: if you get banned on this site, odds are you probably did something REALLY shitty to warrant it, since this site's mods are normally INSANELY lenient and RARELY hand out bans willy-nilly, and are known to even give some of the most annoying trolls chance after chance after chance to redeem themselves.

In the last few pages there's some that were banned without an in-thread response from a Mod. I.E., no warning.

[JulieYBM]

There have been people that got banned after only a few posts in this thread. You also have been here since 2011 so they would be more lenient towards you due to seniority; don't want to lose a long-time member.

This is even MORE ridiculous, and is the sort of paranoid "conspiracy theorizing" that's lead to a couple of other nutbars on this forum cyberstalking me off-site for several months awhile back when one of the mods just happened to close down a similarly heated and politically controversial thread that I just happened to have one of the last posts in, leading to similarly harebrained "Ah ha! The mods and long-standing members of this forum are secretly in on some kind of backroom scheme against the more casual forum members who say opinions they don't agree with!"

As someone who's been an on and off regular on this forum since literally its first year, allow me to preempt that nonsense thusly: no, that is NOT how this site is run. There is ZERO "co-ordination" and absolutely NO "unspoken agreement" between Mike, the other mods, or the more active members to "selectively pick on" certain community members who's views they don't agree on. Neither myself, nor any of the other older forum members have ANY such relationship with the owner or the other mods.

They don't have to deliberately be "in cahoots" with each other. Rather, they'd simply give longer-standing members the benefit of the doubt by their own preference.

Trust me: if you get banned on this site, odds are you probably did something REALLY shitty to warrant it, since this site's mods are normally INSANELY lenient and RARELY hand out bans willy-nilly, and are known to even give some of the most annoying trolls chance after chance after chance to redeem themselves.

In the last few pages there's some that were banned without an in-thread response from a Mod. I.E., no warning.

It is a user's responsibility to read the entire thread.