Phil Fish could be charged 20,000$ and 20 years in prison for fraud. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45958108]Surely you of all people can see how the accusation does not even fit the definition of fraud let alone racketeering or any other illegal activity. Besides, you're just trying to drum up support for your own game review site! That's racketeering! Or something. 20 years. Take him away. Should I make the thread now about how a facepunch moderator could go to prison for 20 years? [editline]11th September 2014[/editline] The failure to fact check train leaves the second station[/QUOTE] I think there's a point where it's just obvious to everyone but yourself you're not seeing something

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45958108]Surely you of all people can see how the accusation does not even fit the definition of fraud let alone racketeering or any other illegal activity. Besides, you're just trying to drum up support for your own game review site! That's racketeering! Or something. 20 years. Take him away. Should I make the thread now about how a facepunch moderator could go to prison for 20 years? [editline]11th September 2014[/editline] The failure to fact check train leaves the second station[/QUOTE] Are you playing the game of "Completely oblivious" or something?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45958709]I think there's a point where it's just obvious to everyone but yourself you're not seeing something[/QUOTE] No, he's partly right. This doesn't fit the definition of racketeering at all. Racketerring is offering a fraudulent service to solve a problem that otherwise wouldn't exist, like extorting protection money. This case looks like it [I]could[/I] be fraud, but even if so, it won't be prosecuted under the RICO act. Furthermore, even if it is fraud, it would be up to the prosecution to indicate that Fish was aware of it and deliberately conspired to benefit from it, and that seems very difficult. This whole thread is one big circlejerk based on a shitty, sensationalist blog post by a known muckraker with no legal experience, people keep posting information that is either poorly researched (guys, that's not Fish's Twitter account, it's a parody) or completely unsupported (Quinn edited the 4chan logs? says who?), the response to any criticism of this approach is somewhere between 'stop defending horrible people' and 'read between the lines', and it's all exactly the sort of clueless, knee-jerk, reactionary vengeance that lets people write off GamerGate as a bunch of immature nerds. The kicker is that the article appears to have been pulled by the website, so clearly someone believes it is not the hard-hitting journalism that this thread appears to have taken it as.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;45961678][url]https://twitter.com/PHiL_FlSH/status/509761567328854016[/url][/QUOTE] how did this even get dumbed search "phil fish twitter" on google, literally the first thing you get is his exact twitter to see for yourself that he said that himself

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;45961678][url]https://twitter.com/PHiL_FlSH/status/509761567328854016[/url][/QUOTE] This is the URL to his old Twitter account: [url]https://twitter.com/PHIL_FISH[/url] That's not him.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;45961678][QUOTE=Swiket;45957343]That's not him. The I in that username is a lowercase L.[/QUOTE] [url]https://twitter.com/PHiL_FlSH/status/509761567328854016[/url][/QUOTE] [url]https://twitter.com/PHiL_FLSH/status/509761567328854016[/url]

I'm so confused, is it an i or an L? either works as a link and that's the first thing that shows is that exact account how do I twitter

usernames aren't case sensitive, the first has a lowercase L in fish edit actually turns out - [url]https://twitter.com/ANYTHINGGOES/status/509761567328854016[/url] but if you look at the account it goes too the second I is actually a lowecase L

[QUOTE=J!NX;45965056]I'm so confused, is it an i or an L? either works as a link and that's the first thing that shows is that exact account how do I twitter[/QUOTE] [URL]http://i.imgur.com/A0uL4nl.png[/URL] Look at the gray highlighted part of the developer console. it says PHIL_FlSH, like krutomisi said. You can test it yourself by right clicking the @PHIL_FISH and clicking inspect element.

[QUOTE=JoelDJr;45955234][B]Zoe Quinn is now being accused of Charity fraud.[/B] [t]https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1012x420q90/540/YuFDb0.png[/t][/QUOTE] Three days late to the party, but here goes - the answer I got reflects something very different: [t]http://i.imgur.com/x5q7Z79.jpg[/t] Now... #1 In the question I mentioned both Zoe and the game by full name, as well as linking to the official game website, to avoid possible identity confusion (e.g. referring to the donor as "Depression Quest" only, as I suspect the other guy may have). #2 Given one of the donation links is just straight-up just her PayPal account (Indie remember, no parent company) it stands to reason that the donations would been made under her name too. After all, why would the donations be under the name of the product, and not the owner of that product? #3 If the claim that some proceeds from the game were being donated to the charity [I]was[/I] fraudulent, their response upon viewing the link I included probably have included something more than "Nope it's legit" - either that, or they're in on it too! :tinfoil: