Three video game developers independently accused of sexual assault in one day.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://vice.com/en_us/article/vb5dp4/t ... in-one-day

In a single day this week, three prominent men in the video game development industry were independently accused of sexual assault.

On Monday, Nathalie Lawhead, an independent video game designer from California, published a 6,800 word blog post. Lawhead alleged they were raped by Jeremy Soule, an acclaimed composer known for his work on The Elder Scrolls and Guild Wars series. Hours later, in a lengthy post on Twitter, indie developer Zoe Quinn accused Night in the Woods developer Alec Holowka of sexual abuse and imprisoning Quinn in Holowka's home in Winnipeg. A third accusation came from a woman named Adelaide Gardner against Luc Shelton of Splash Damage, who worked on Gears of War 4. Gardner told Motherboard Shelton assaulted her in 2018.

Soule, Holowka, and Shelton did not respond to requests for comment.

The accusations have started conversations about sexual assault in the video game industry, and about how powerful men can crush the careers of women and non-binary people trying to enter the industry. Late last week, Riot Games announced a settlement with two women who filed a gender discrimination suit against the Santa Monica-based League of Legends developer last year—which prompted a 100-employee walkout in May.

After more than a decade of silence, Lawhead, who uses they/them pronouns, published a blog post titled "calling out my rapist," in which they note they want to “prevent other women from being victimized by” Soule.

Lawhead wrote that they met Soule at a Christmas party in Vancouver in 2008, while contracting for an undisclosed studio early in their career. Lawhead said that they were “very clear” that they didn’t want a romantic relationship with Soule. But as the two grew closer, Lawhead wrote, Soule would frequently complain about women who “had wronged him” and “cheated on him.” He talked about how “men are helpless and they need sex, how he needs sex, and a relationship, so he can write his music,” Lawhead wrote. At the time, Lawhead worried about losing their job, one that they hoped would be their “big break.” Lawhead said that, eventually, Soule raped them.

In the aftermath of the alleged assault, Lawhead said they were fired by the Vancouver company’s CEO, who Lawhead said was a personal friend of Soule’s. Lawhead said they did not receive credit for two years of work on the project, and also alleged that the company never gave them their final paycheck and still owe them today.

Soule’s agency representative, Max Steiner, did not respond to a phone call or email request for comment. Soule's Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram accounts have been deactivated in the last 48 hours, according to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. No charges have been filed against him at this time.

The accusations have started conversations about sexual assault in the video game industry, and about how powerful men can crush the careers of women and non-binary people trying to enter the industry.

Within hours, Lawhead’s post prompted Zoe Quinn, who also uses they/them pronouns, to tweet a statement about their own alleged abuser, Night in the Woods developer Alec Holowka. “I’ve been so afraid for so long but felt so sick watching more people get hurt and too many colleagues watch, shrug & put him on stages,” Quinn wrote. “I read Nathalie Lawhead’s post about their rapist being an industry legend who took advantage of her and poisoned her career and it shook me to my core.”

Quinn wrote that, while paying an extended visit to Holowka in Winnipeg during a period early in Quinn's career, Holowka “absolutely degraded” them and held them captive in his home. Quinn alleges that Holowka refused to let them leave the apartment alone and would not give them the code to get into his house. At one point, he screamed at them “for over an hour” because of “the tone” of their voice when they greeted him, and was “mean and violent” during sex, Quinn writes. “He'd jam his fingers inside me and walk me around the house by them when I told him it hurt,” Quinn wrote.

On Tuesday, Scott Benson, who co-developed Night in the Woods with Holowka tweeted, “we were all unaware of the events described last night. It might take a day or so for a more complete response b/c some things need to be worked out, but steps are being taken.” Holowka and Benson did not return Motherboard’s requests for comment.

If you need someone to talk to about an experience with sexual assault or abuse, you can call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673), where trained staff can provide you with support, information, advice, or a referral. You can also access 24/7 help online by visiting online.rainn.org.

Other prominent women in the industry have corroborated Quinn’s claims. On Tuesday, a senior editor at Polygon, Patricia Hernandez, and indie games developers Aura Triolo and Christine Love defended Quinn. Love said Quinn made her aware at the time of the alleged incidents.

A third person Adelaide Gardner, said seeing Quinn’s post emboldened her to share her own story. She told Motherboard “I’ve followed Quinn for ages. When I saw her post, I wrote mine out on Twitter.” Gardner said that Luc Shelton of games studio Splash Damage assaulted her in London last year. Shelton worked on Gears of War 4 and Gears of War: Ultimate Edition.

Do you have a story to tell about sexual assault or harassment in the gaming industry? We'd like to hear from you and your friends. You can send Lauren an email at lauren.gurley@vice.com.

At one point, he “handcuff[ed]” her “so tight” she lost feeling in her wrists for hours, and blamed things on his “dominant nature,” Gardner wrote. Shelton did not return Motherboard’s requests for comment. Splash Damage said in an email that it is "aware of the matter and take it very seriously … you should also know that the employee concerned denies any allegations of wrongdoing."

“No one has talked about this in the games industry and I don’t know why,” Gardner said. “Maybe because games development is seen as this really left wing thing. It’s a lot harder to go public.” Gardner previously tweeted her story about Luc Shelton in 2018 during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and received around 14 likes. This time, her tweet has received more than 3,400 likes.

Naturally, the cries of "The women are lying" have already started.

I expect this will basically turn into Gamergate Round 2 in short order.

[mr friendly guy]

So is any legal ramifications going to come out of this? Because at the moment I see this as like Bill Cosby before his guilty verdict, suspicious but I am not going to say they are guilty unless there is a court case.

[Elheru Aran]

So is any legal ramifications going to come out of this? Because at the moment I see this as like Bill Cosby before his guilty verdict, suspicious but I am not going to say they are guilty unless there is a court case.

Legal? Unless charges are brought (somewhat unlikely, depends on whether any of them have evidence), probably not.

Social? If their stories gain enough traction, yeah, these men might get let go from their jobs. There'll be a repeat of the whole back-and-forth Gamergate ugliness. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if these women have to leave social media for some time.

[LaCroix]

This is different to Gamergate, tho - that was about gamers harrassing critics of games.
This is about criminal offences by software developers to software developers. There is no "your favourite games are bad/misogyinist" angle to this, just a "this guy who made some good games is also a creep who harrasses/assaults coworkers" angle.

I'm thinking it will be more of an OJ/Cosby situation than Gamergate.

[Vendetta]

This is different to Gamergate, tho - that was about gamers harrassing critics of games.
This is about criminal offences by software developers to software developers. There is no "your favourite games are bad/misogyinist" angle to this, just a "this guy who made some good games is also a creep who harrasses/assaults coworkers" angle.

I'm thinking it will be more of an OJ/Cosby situation than Gamergate.

Although Gamergate was actually mostly about gamers harassing female indie game developers and cloaking themselves in a shroud of concern about critics and media.

One of whom is among the three who have come forward in this incident.

So y'know, expect a certain amount of churning shit from the pits of the internet.

[Elheru Aran]

This is different to Gamergate, tho - that was about gamers harrassing critics of games.
This is about criminal offences by software developers to software developers. There is no "your favourite games are bad/misogyinist" angle to this, just a "this guy who made some good games is also a creep who harrasses/assaults coworkers" angle.

I'm thinking it will be more of an OJ/Cosby situation than Gamergate.

Although Gamergate was actually mostly about gamers harassing female indie game developers and cloaking themselves in a shroud of concern about critics and media.

One of whom is among the three who have come forward in this incident.

So y'know, expect a certain amount of churning shit from the pits of the internet.

^That's mostly what I meant by referencing Gamergate, yes. The various social media venues for gamers are about to become an even more scurrilous pit of toxic attitudes if this gets much bigger.

[K. A. Pital]

Alec Holowka took his own life.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alec Holowka took his own life.

That's a shame, particularly as it means he cannot stand trial, and that he will now be held up as a martyr who was "driven to suicide by SJW persecution".

[mr friendly guy]

Alec Holowka took his own life.

That's a shame, particularly as it means he cannot stand trial, and that he will now be held up as a martyr who was "driven to suicide by SJW persecution".

Its definitely a shame he can't stand trial so we can find out what happened. As of this moment I have no idea whether the allegations against him are true or not.

However anyone pointing out he committed suicide due to SJW pressure should be informed of the hypocrisy of calling SJWs snowflakes and that Zoe Quinn and others lasted this long without committing suicide despite the abuse heaped onto her unlike Holowka.

[K. A. Pital]

Alec Holowka took his own life.

That's a shame, particularly as it means he cannot stand trial, and that he will now be held up as a martyr who was "driven to suicide by SJW persecution".

What trial are you talking about? There has not been any investigation or criminal case opened against him.

Honestly, are you really OK with the idea a person can be accused online without due process, found guilty by the audience and then have his or her reputation stained forever by something which might as well be false?

Is this not similar to what Gamergaters actually did to their online mobbing targets?

[Ziggy Stardust]

What trial are you talking about? There has not been any investigation or criminal case opened against him.

Honestly, are you really OK with the idea a person can be accused online without due process, found guilty by the audience and then have his or her reputation stained forever by something which might as well be false?

Is this not similar to what Gamergaters actually did to their online mobbing targets?

Pretty sure he is basically saying the exact opposite of this, dude. I would take his comment about it being too bad there wasn't a trial as a specific endorsement of these sorts of things being subject to due process*, not as some sort of celebration of vigilante justice.

(* with all necessary caveats about the difficulties of pursuing sexual assault claims in our current legal system)

[The Romulan Republic]

What trial are you talking about? There has not been any investigation or criminal case opened against him.

Honestly, are you really OK with the idea a person can be accused online without due process, found guilty by the audience and then have his or her reputation stained forever by something which might as well be false?

Is this not similar to what Gamergaters actually did to their online mobbing targets?

Pretty sure he is basically saying the exact opposite of this, dude. I would take his comment about it being too bad there wasn't a trial as a specific endorsement of these sorts of things being subject to due process*, not as some sort of celebration of vigilante justice.

(* with all necessary caveats about the difficulties of pursuing sexual assault claims in our current legal system)

Yeah. I'm saying that I would have liked to see these cases go to court, and K. A. Pital's little rant is yet another example of someone on this board reflexively assuming the worst of my position and putting words in my mouth.

What trial are you talking about? There has not been any investigation or criminal case opened against him.

Honestly, are you really OK with the idea a person can be accused online without due process, found guilty by the audience and then have his or her reputation stained forever by something which might as well be false?

Is this not similar to what Gamergaters actually did to their online mobbing targets?

No, it is not at all similar. To my knowledge, nobody threatened the accused in these cases with rape or murder. If they did, then they should be charged for those crimes, but publicly accusing someone of a crime is not remotely equivalent to criminal harassment or making terroristic threats. That's all the accusers did: publicly accuse someone of committing a crime against them. So let me turn that around: are you really saying that rape victims should not be allowed to speak publicly about their experiences, because it might damage the accused's reputation?

Also, its pretty damn funny to see you of all people bleat about the importance of the rule of American law, and how it is somehow threatened by rape victims speaking out publicly about their abuse.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an absolutely essential pillar of a fair court system. However, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle applied in a courtroom. It does not apply to all discourse or social interaction. I, as a private citizen, do not have to wait for a court's verdict to conclude that someone is guilty, and to choose to shun them accordingly. Neither do private businesses, as seen with the firings of other accused predators in the entertainment industry. These are all things that fall under the rights to freedom of belief, expression, and association, which are also rights necessary to the functioning of a free society, just as much as the rule of law is, and they are not equivalent to making threats or committing acts of violence like the Gamergate scum did.. And the infliction of such social and professional stigma is, sadly, often the only justice rape victims can get. If people often look for justice outside the court system in such cases, it is likely because the legal system has generally done such a god-awful job of protecting rape victims, rather than subjecting them to further torment while their rapists go free.

If these allegations are false, then the accused are certainly deserving of sympathy. They also, in the case of private citizens who are wrongly accused, have legal recourse, in the form of filing a defamation suit against their accusers. But it is far more likely that the allegations are not false-ignored rapes are a much bigger problem than false rape allegations, though social prejudice portrays it as the other way around-so why is the instinctive response to suspect the women, and blame them for ruining the reputations of the men they accused, even when doing so will almost certainly subject them to serious threats of further rapes and murder? Why is your first response to rush to the defense of the accused in these cases?

[Lord Revan]

Well there's the issue that unlike privative citizen for celeberties being falsely accused will effect your livelyhood to point possibly outright destroying it, now that I think of even private citizens aren't immune of loosing all forms of social or business interactions due to false accusations.

That is why "innocent until proven guilty" must be more then just legal pricible it just be a moral one as well. After all it doesn't matter if you are guilty or not if everyone is unwilling to deal with you because they think you're guilty and if proven innocent in court they just assume there wasn't enough evidence to convict you.

Yes at the moment false negatives and lack of reporting is generally speaking a worse problem then false accusations, however that won't be fixed by turning false accusations into a silver bullet to ruin someone's life. If anything that would devalue to the actual victims and might make them be less willing to report the crimes out of fear of being seen as just wanting to ruin someone's life for petty reasons, rather for reporting an actual missdeed.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah. I'm saying that I would have liked to see these cases go to court, and K. A. Pital's little rant is yet another example of someone on this board reflexively assuming the worst of my position and putting words in my mouth.

Publicly accusing someone can have much heavier repercussions than you imply. Your whole life can be destroyed. Let us move to a time before the internet. If I called your colleagues and friends today and let them know you are a sex offender, you would have the ability to defend yourself in a court of law, of course. But this represents an issue, it is very likely that your life would be destroyed already by the time you win the slander case.

That is all I have meant to say. I never was a legalist, so it does not matter to me if the “law” is upheld or whatnot. I only argue for myself and air my own views on the matter.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Publicly accusing someone can have much heavier repercussions than you imply. Your whole life can be destroyed. Let us move to a time before the internet. If I called your colleagues and friends today and let them know you are a sex offender, you would have the ability to defend yourself in a court of law, of course. But this represents an issue, it is very likely that your life would be destroyed already by the time you win the slander case.

That is all I have meant to say. I never was a legalist, so it does not matter to me if the “law” is upheld or whatnot. I only argue for myself and air my own views on the matter.

They're not facing any legal consequences and they can sure for defamation, libel, and slander if that's the case. Nothing has changed from "back then".

[Lord Revan]

Publicly accusing someone can have much heavier repercussions than you imply. Your whole life can be destroyed. Let us move to a time before the internet. If I called your colleagues and friends today and let them know you are a sex offender, you would have the ability to defend yourself in a court of law, of course. But this represents an issue, it is very likely that your life would be destroyed already by the time you win the slander case.

That is all I have meant to say. I never was a legalist, so it does not matter to me if the “law” is upheld or whatnot. I only argue for myself and air my own views on the matter.

They're not facing any legal consequences and they can sure for defamation, libel, and slander if that's the case. Nothing has changed from "back then".

In a perfect world that would be the case but we live in an imperfect world, in fact suing for defamation might in fact make things worse(assuming you could afford it anyway suing isn't free and not every this can happen is super rich), what me and K.A.Pital have been trying to point to you is that the damage from public accusations extends beyond the legal consequences, since people won't want to work with you due them thinking your guilty regardless what the courts said (they'll think if you were freed it's just because the courts were either corrupt or unable to prove your guilt) and this can happen to anyone from homeless guy barely getting enough money doing janitorial work to the biggest celeberties with millions of dollars in income.

[Aether]

Publicly accusing someone can have much heavier repercussions than you imply. Your whole life can be destroyed. Let us move to a time before the internet. If I called your colleagues and friends today and let them know you are a sex offender, you would have the ability to defend yourself in a court of law, of course. But this represents an issue, it is very likely that your life would be destroyed already by the time you win the slander case.

That is all I have meant to say. I never was a legalist, so it does not matter to me if the “law” is upheld or whatnot. I only argue for myself and air my own views on the matter.

They're not facing any legal consequences and they can sure for defamation, libel, and slander if that's the case. Nothing has changed from "back then".

In a perfect world that would be the case but we live in an imperfect world, in fact suing for defamation might in fact make things worse(assuming you could afford it anyway suing isn't free and not every this can happen is super rich), what me and K.A.Pital have been trying to point to you is that the damage from public accusations extends beyond the legal consequences, since people won't want to work with you due them thinking your guilty regardless what the courts said (they'll think if you were freed it's just because the courts were either corrupt or unable to prove your guilt) and this can happen to anyone from homeless guy barely getting enough money doing janitorial work to the biggest celeberties with millions of dollars in income.

I understand the sentiment. As of now these are unsubstantiated Internet rumors; I'll consider them proper allegations when the police are involved and conduct an investigation.

And to those who say, "Well, if these rumors are not really true the person can sue for defamation!" Well, good. I presume that even if the defamation case is not a success, the mere fact that one fought back in court is enough to sway one's opinion, correct? Afterall, defamation is not easy. Even if the statement is false, even if the statement also caused one harm, one still needs to prove that the statements made were purposely and/or negligently.

[Ralin]

They're not facing any legal consequences and they can sure for defamation, libel, and slander if that's the case. Nothing has changed from "back then".

Not that I disagree with larger point, but surely you realize how ridiculous it is to cite American laws against defamation as a viable option?

[Elfdart]

Publicly accusing someone can have much heavier repercussions than you imply. Your whole life can be destroyed. Let us move to a time before the internet. If I called your colleagues and friends today and let them know you are a sex offender, you would have the ability to defend yourself in a court of law, of course. But this represents an issue, it is very likely that your life would be destroyed already by the time you win the slander case.

That is all I have meant to say. I never was a legalist, so it does not matter to me if the “law” is upheld or whatnot. I only argue for myself and air my own views on the matter.

Apparently the wokescold mob has never read about the Hollywood Blacklist. If they had, they might realize just how smugly stupid they are when they insist that smearing a person's reputation and ruining their career and livelihood is no big deal unless the government does it. No doubt if they were around back in the Red Scare era, they would have responded to Philip Loeb's suicide the same way they respond to Alec Holowka killing himself.

They're not facing any legal consequences and they can sure for defamation, libel, and slander if that's the case. Nothing has changed from "back then".

The whole point of blacklists and browbeating employers into firing people is to screw a person in a way where they can't really respond. The employer can claim they were just responding to what they had heard about and good luck suing for libel/slander/defamation in the US. Even if you win (the only person blacklisted to ever sue successfully was John Henry Faulk), you're (a) not likely to recover any real damages and (b) still going to have the calumny attached to your name anyway. What has changed is that even in open-and-shut cases of libel where the plaintiff wins (like when Jesse Ventura won his case against the pathological liar Chris Kyle), the internet is still awash with the lies. Before the internet, a libel case (especially the rare ones where a public figure wins) got as much if not more publicity as the offending article (like the infamous Carol Burnett case). Now a plaintiff has to play whack-a-mole or keep their fingers crossed and hope that busting the chops of a couple of slander merchants will deter others (this appears to have worked for Matt Taibbi).

[madd0ct0r]

False accusations can and do happen, but Elfdart, what mechanism do you suggest people who are sexually harassed in the ways described in the op, what do you think they should do?

[Vendetta]

False accusations can and do happen, but Elfdart, what mechanism do you suggest people who are sexually harassed in the ways described in the op, what do you think they should do?

If something criminal has happened, pursue it legally. If something unethical has happened in the context of an employer relationship, then raise it internally and via tribunal if internal recourse fails.

Twitter is literally the worst place to do anything, especially anything that matters. And as we've seen in this thread, the court of public opinion can quite happily hand down a death sentence.

[Effie]

Do you guys know that the alternative to #MeToo isn't women remaining silent and relying entirely on the ever-feminist corporate HR systems and the police, who certainly don't have a massive backlog of untested rape kits, for justice, right? It's whisper networks and warnings. These are actually even worse for you all, with your fear of "wokescolds", because you don't even know that it's happening. They're also worse because predators can shift targets to people who aren't plugged into the whisper network and they don't actually face any consequences for their actions. But if you really want to end "slander", you would need to institute inquisitorial practices against women in the workforce.

[Vendetta]

Do you guys know that the alternative to #MeToo isn't women remaining silent and relying entirely on the ever-feminist corporate HR systems and the police, who certainly don't have a massive backlog of untested rape kits, for justice, right? It's whisper networks and warnings. These are actually even worse for you all, with your fear of "wokescolds", because you don't even know that it's happening. They're also worse because predators can shift targets to people who aren't plugged into the whisper network and they don't actually face any consequences for their actions. But if you really want to end "slander", you would need to institute inquisitorial practices against women in the workforce.

So instead of fixing faulty systems that should work you should use one that's guaranteed not to because it's unfocused and terrible.

Also, the bit about rape kits is a red herring, because in none of these cases is there a question of whether sex happened and who was involved, but was there consent. Which is, frankly, far too complicated a question to be answered by a vast number of angry people on twitter.

You don't fix systems by attacking individuals, especially individuals who you've misidentified as having any power at all in the system.

[Effie]

Do you guys know that the alternative to #MeToo isn't women remaining silent and relying entirely on the ever-feminist corporate HR systems and the police, who certainly don't have a massive backlog of untested rape kits, for justice, right? It's whisper networks and warnings. These are actually even worse for you all, with your fear of "wokescolds", because you don't even know that it's happening. They're also worse because predators can shift targets to people who aren't plugged into the whisper network and they don't actually face any consequences for their actions. But if you really want to end "slander", you would need to institute inquisitorial practices against women in the workforce.

So instead of fixing faulty systems that should work you should use one that's guaranteed not to because it's unfocused and terrible.

Also, the bit about rape kits is a red herring, because in none of these cases is there a question of whether sex happened and who was involved, but was there consent. Which is, frankly, far too complicated a question to be answered by a vast number of angry people on twitter.

You don't fix systems by attacking individuals, especially individuals who you've misidentified as having any power at all in the system.

One doesn't fix faulty systems by simply applying to them and doing nothing else. One way that one could fix a faulty system is to put pressure on it from the outside.

It's not a red herring because the point is that the police neglect cases of rape and sexual assault and so relying on them for justice is fundamentally a failure.

Of course, you reject the feminist structural analysis of power, by suggesting men don't have any power from their gender, so it is not surprising that you make a response like this. I'm just curious why you're so sloppy as to admit to being an anti-feminist while trying to lecture people on how to do feminism.

[Tiriol]

Do you guys know that the alternative to #MeToo isn't women remaining silent and relying entirely on the ever-feminist corporate HR systems and the police, who certainly don't have a massive backlog of untested rape kits, for justice, right? It's whisper networks and warnings. These are actually even worse for you all, with your fear of "wokescolds", because you don't even know that it's happening. They're also worse because predators can shift targets to people who aren't plugged into the whisper network and they don't actually face any consequences for their actions. But if you really want to end "slander", you would need to institute inquisitorial practices against women in the workforce.

So instead of fixing faulty systems that should work you should use one that's guaranteed not to because it's unfocused and terrible.

Also, the bit about rape kits is a red herring, because in none of these cases is there a question of whether sex happened and who was involved, but was there consent. Which is, frankly, far too complicated a question to be answered by a vast number of angry people on twitter.

You don't fix systems by attacking individuals, especially individuals who you've misidentified as having any power at all in the system.

One doesn't fix faulty systems by simply applying to them and doing nothing else. One way that one could fix a faulty system is to put pressure on it from the outside.

It's not a red herring because the point is that the police neglect cases of rape and sexual assault and so relying on them for justice is fundamentally a failure.

Of course, you reject the feminist structural analysis of power, by suggesting men don't have any power from their gender, so it is not surprising that you make a response like this. I'm just curious why you're so sloppy as to admit to being an anti-feminist while trying to lecture people on how to do feminism.

Where did Vendetta admit being anti-feminist and where did he lecture people on how to do feminism?

However, the court of public opinion is still a horrifying thing. It's also fickle: people like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are still admired and find work, while someone who is not so adored could lose everything (including familial ties) because the public opinion has judged him or her to be at fault.