Forum - View topicINTEREST: Vic Mignogna No Longer a Member of RWBY Cast
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mad_Scientist
 SubscriberModerator  Posts: 3013 |
|
|||||||||
So first, in the other thread, ANN's CEO had this to say:
At that time at least, Vic wasn't interested in saying more. He did make an apology at a con apparently, and that video was included in this article. I'm sure that if Vic decides to release a second statement, ANN will be happy to report on it. Secondly, I think you are misunderstanding something about the tweets included in this latest article. That long line of tweets you mentioned are prefaced with "Other voice actors' thoughts are shared below." They're not, to the best of my knowledge, being highlighted because they pick one side or the other. Indeed, the very first tweet in in the wall of tweets (as of this moment) is by someone who very much takes no side, just expresses amazement at how this whole thing blew up while he went to Japan. I'm fairly confident these tweets are instead being highlighted because they are Vic's professional colleagues, and so what they have to say on the matter is potentially relevant (especially if some of them, like Monica Rial, can attest to having directly confronted Vic about the his behavior with fans in the past.) Now, the fact that at least so far, the other voice actors speaking out about this publicly are pretty much all speaking against Vic and/or supporting his accusers, well you are free to come up with your own interpretation as to why that is. I certainly have mine. And it is true that ANN is not a gossip rag, but on the other hand, accusations of decades long misconduct kind of go beyond just the realm of gossip. There's a difference between sleazy gossip rag and serious investigative reporting, and these accusations are a serious matter worthy of concern. And I for one am glad ANN reported on them, though you could probably have easily guessed my viewpoint by now. I understand being concerned, but ANN did a lot of research in their initial article and corroborated a lot of stuff with multiple sources, so I think they are taking this stuff seriously and giving it the care it deserves. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dracofire3
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||||
1.This stuff has been rumored for years and not only has he been invited back to cons but he is has been working with the same voice actors for years who are calling him out no. Thats questionable to me. 2.We used that standard for a CRIME which sexual assault and harrassemnt is, if you believe an allegation is true, why not put him on that jury with all the evidence that are supposedly out there and convict him? 3.The law ain't perfect, but its far better to witchunting and the internet mob which is not even fair so for you to say that you can disagree with a court's findings which undermines our justice system just shows your kind of thinking when it comes to this. Here is my issue with this whole thing. These rumors have existed for years and there is supposed evidence and testimonies and even his voice colleagues yet he was still getting jobs and invited to cons. if there is evidence, charges should be pressed and taken to the police and not to the internet mob. and as for the voice colleagues, their words are as good as dirt. The guy is a supposed sexual predator. Yet you still worked with him or never came forward publicly before so either A. They were worried about their careers making them complicit, B. They didn't care or C. They are lying. Overall, I don't stand with vic or against him |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dewey Donedidit
Posts: 18 |
|
|||||||||
That's kinda the wrong comparison. This is more like you own a store and you see an employee with a T shirt on like the kind your store sells, but you never actually saw him steal it, but you just assumed he stole it when he could very well have purchased it legally but decided to fire him anyway based on your own gut feeling. That's what an allegation is. Video of someone explicitly shoplifting is actual proof, which we have none of at the moment. But an employer doesn't need a reason to fire someone, they can fire someone on a whim if they want, so lack of evidence doesn't help in this case. Sadly, even in a legal case it can happen. Erroneous testimonies, whether offered in good faith or purposely lying, is the single leading factor of wrongful convictions in the US, which is why I need more than just a testimony before I can side on the guilty side |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mad_Scientist
Subscriber Moderator Posts: 3013 |
|
|||||||||
Some cons didn't invite him back and instead banned him. And cons had a profit motive to bring him back, because he had fans and would bring fans to cons, which means more paying guests. As for voice actors, well, they have to pay the bills. They don't get to choose who they work with. In a society where you need money to survive, you often may find yourself working with people you intensely dislike.
First of all, there is a wealth of actions that are between the points of "perfectly fine and innocent" and "criminal sexual assault." Second of all, neither the people you are arguing with, nor the writers of this article, have the ability to arrest Vic or put him on trial. Some posters have said he should be, but they have no authority to do so. The only people who can arrest him are the cops, but they aren't gonna just act on their own, and there are many, many reasons why victims might not want to report to the cops, including the possibility that some of them may themselves believe the actions fall into the range of "incredibly gross and inappropriate, but not technically criminal." Thirdly, related to that last part, you may be surprised to know that sexual harassment is not necessarily a crime. It's not even necessarily something that you can be held liable for civilly. I was on a jury for a rather complicated sexual harassment lawsuit a few years back, and the instructions we were given were quite clear. We weren't supposed to determine if the plaintiffs had been sexually harassed. We were supposed to determine if they had suffered "legally actionable" sexual harassment. There was a lot of specific definitions for this, but the thing that kind of surprised me was that we could find both that someone was sexually harassed, and that the sexual harassment was severe and/or sustained, and that still wouldn't by itself meet the standard for legally actionable sexual harassment. So yes, there is a massive, massive amount of sexually inappropriate behavior one can do that doesn't automatically qualify as criminal. Related to that, there is a point I want to make. People often bring up "innocent until proven guilty" in situation like this, but that legal standard for guilt only applies to criminal cases, where jail time or worse is on the line. Vic is not facing possible jail time at this moment, to the best of my knowledge, and if he does at some point in the future it will mean he has been arrested, in which case the "court of public opinion" will not determine his case, and "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" will in fact be the legal standard used at trial. Right now, one of the biggest things that Vic is facing is potential loss of money. So it seems to me, if we're gonna use a legal standard regarding guilt for Vic, it would make more sense to use a legal standard that is used in civil lawsuits, where loss of money is generally the result of losing. The legal standard for civil cases, as explained to me by the judge presiding over the sexual harassment case I was a juror for, was "preponderance of evidence", or as she put it, "more likely than not." Going into the case, we were supposed to be unbiased, have no preconceived ideas on who was right. The scales should be weighted 50/50, and if at the end of the case they were still 50/50, a complete coin toss as to who we felt was right, we side for the defendant. But if at the end of the case those scales had shifted just slightly, even if we simply felt there was a 51% chance that the plaintiff's claims were correct, we would side on behalf of the plaintiff. Also, and the judge stressed this fact repeatedly, witness statements were evidence. She quite bluntly said we could decide the case based on the testimony of a single witness if we found it credible enough. So it seems to me, if we're gonna start invoking legal standards about guilt, this is the one that makes sense. Based on the evidence that is multiple witness statements, based on the evidence that is multiple photographs, based on the evidence that is at least one video, is it more likely than not that Vic acted sexually/physically inappropriate?
Courts have convicted hundreds, thousands of people who were lately exonerated. Courts have said that slavery was legal and moral. Courts have made countless mistakes, and will continue to make countless mistakes. In the sexual harassment case I was on, for one of the plaintiffs we hung, which is by definition a mistake, because the defendant could not be both guilty and innocent at the same time, yet we could not come to an agreement on it. So, are you really trying to suggest that someone simply saying "courts sometimes make mistakes so it's okay to disagree with decisions they make" is somehow a wrong or gross statement? Because that was the implication I got from your post. But hey, maybe I'm misinterpreting your post. I mean it is late and I am a bit tired after all. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Ashabel
 Posts: 351 |
|
|||||||||
You do realize that being in the same dub with Vic isn't the same as working with him directly, right? Unlike in Japanese industry, the vast majority of English dubs are recorded separately. One person enters the recording booth and reads their lines and then those lines are edited into a continuous voice track. Hell, sometimes it doesn't even happen in the same studio - it's possible for a voice actor to record locally, then just send in the director a voice track for approval. So no, being in the same dub doesn't mean these people spend any of their working hours with him. It just means their voice was recorded completely separately in order to appear in the same sound reel with his. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cain Highwind
Posts: 316 |
|
|||||||||
Thanks for this thorough and eloquent write up. You explain it better than I ever could. Worth noting, too, is that these people coming forward like Pridemore has already been receiving death threats and harassment for coming forward. People are VERY hesitant in coming forward because of this. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dracofire3
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||||
I also want to be respectful here and say that I understand why you feel the way you do, I hope you can understand my view without it antagonizing you or anyone here "Some cons didn't invite him back and instead banned him" Except those guys never said why he was banned, some of them are even rumored to be because he preached his Christian faith at the time. I can imagine they changed it now to this but again timing hurts. "And cons had a profit motive to bring him back, because he had fans and would bring fans to cons, which means more paying guests. As for voice actors, well, they have to pay the bills. They don't get to choose who they work with. In a society where you need money to survive, you often may find yourself working with people you intensely dislike." You are talking about sexual assault and harassment here. Money is not a good reason to ignore any of that and if what they are saying is true, yet they didn't come forward publicly then they didn't care or they are cowards and they deserve criticize for that, not praised. "First of all, there is a wealth of actions that are between the points of "perfectly fine and innocent" and "criminal sexual assault." And in a a rational society, those actions wouldn't nor shouldn't cost you everything that you have worked for in the last 20 years. Many entertainers are awful people but because they aren't criminals, we don't care because they aren't in prison. There is no moral standard for being an entertainer Thats why I hate internet mobs like this. These are the people that get you fired from your dream job because of an 8 year old tweet or get doxed for things you didn't even do yet they claim to be seekers of justice. "Second of all, neither the people you are arguing with, nor the writers of this article, have the ability to arrest Vic or put him on trial. Some posters have said he should be, but they have no authority to do so. The only people who can arrest him are the cops, but they aren't gonna just act on their own, and there are many, many reasons why victims might not want to report to the cops, including the possibility that some of them may themselves believe the actions fall into the range of "incredibly gross and inappropriate, but not technically criminal." You can't treat a man like a criminal but then say the cops won't do anything because its not technically criminal. You can't deem a man guilty but then say you have no authority to put him on a trail and you can't say you are helping victims when you deny the only way they can get true justice/ All of this makes me wonder how much water you think this actually holds. "Thirdly, related to that last part, you may be surprised to know that sexual harassment is not necessarily a crime. It's not even necessarily something that you can be held liable for civilly. I was on a jury for a rather complicated sexual harassment lawsuit a few years back, and the instructions we were given were quite clear. We weren't supposed to determine if the plaintiffs had been sexually harassed. We were supposed to determine if they had suffered "legally actionable" sexual harassment. There was a lot of specific definitions for this, but the thing that kind of surprised me was that we could find both that someone was sexually harassed, and that the sexual harassment was severe and/or sustained, and that still wouldn't by itself meet the standard for legally actionable sexual harassment. So yes, there is a massive, massive amount of sexually inappropriate behavior one can do that doesn't automatically qualify as criminal." And you will be shocked the find that the sexual harassment laws vary from state to state. even then yes you can take someone for a civil lawsuit which with all this corroboration that you speak of and predatory behavior of minors, im pretty sure you have a case. "Related to that, there is a point I want to make. People often bring up "innocent until proven guilty" in situation like this, but that legal standard for guilt only applies to criminal cases, where jail time or worse is on the line. Vic is not facing possible jail time at this moment, to the best of my knowledge, and if he does at some point in the future it will mean he has been arrested, in which case the "court of public opinion" will not determine his case, and "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" will in fact be the legal standard used at trial." that innocent until proven guilty should only be applied for when jail is involved is the exact reason for the understandably backlash against the much needed metoo movement. Who can defend themselves in that kinda environment and why should they even try when people already think they did it. You say if vic was arrested, court of public opinion will not determine his case but Michaal Jackson was found innocent and people still call him a molester. So tell me again why innocent until proven guilty is only for when you are going to jail not when your entire life is on the line. "Right now, one of the biggest things that Vic is facing is potential loss of money. So it seems to me, if we're gonna use a legal standard regarding guilt for Vic, it would make more sense to use a legal standard that is used in civil lawsuits, where loss of money is generally the result of losing." He is being accused of being a sexual predator, we put people on lists for life for that, this stuff doesn't just go away like a civil lawsuit. "The legal standard for civil cases, as explained to me by the judge presiding over the sexual harassment case I was a juror for, was "preponderance of evidence", or as she put it, "more likely than not." Going into the case, we were supposed to be unbiased, have no preconceived ideas on who was right. The scales should be weighted 50/50, and if at the end of the case they were still 50/50, a complete coin toss as to who we felt was right, we side for the defendant. But if at the end of the case those scales had shifted just slightly, even if we simply felt there was a 51% chance that the plaintiff's claims were correct, we would side on behalf of the plaintiff. Also, and the judge stressed this fact repeatedly, [b]witness statements were evidence. She quite bluntly said we could decide the case based on the testimony of a single witness if we found it credible enough. "So it seems to me, if we're gonna start invoking legal standards about guilt, this is the one that makes sense. Based on the evidence that is multiple witness statements, based on the evidence that is multiple photographs, based on the evidence that is at least one video, is it more likely than not that Vic acted sexually/physically inappropriate?" [/b] Everybody has different standards of guilty so it makes sense that a judge would tell you that. I honestly need more than that to dub someone a monster but thats just me Vic isn't well liked and i don't know him personally but being an asshole ain't mean he is a sexual predator. If this was a legal case, i would want to question each witness. As for multiple pictures, all you have are him kissing and hugging girls which some have come out and said were consensual even one of a girl kissing him, I noticed that didn't get posted, and while some have said otherwise. Some are eyebrow raising and he has even apologized if he has crossed boundaries but that was never his intention. Now whether you believe him or not, think the fan/idol balance throw consent out the window or think the ones accusing him are the only ones telling the truth here, it does mean there is more than meets the eye here And speaking of videos, i notice the site didn't post the one of him arguing with christian protesters about gay people whom he defended when running accusations of him being a homophobe but maybe i missed that too. "Courts have convicted hundreds, thousands of people who were lately exonerated. Courts have said that slavery was legal and moral. Courts have made countless mistakes, and will continue to make countless mistakes. In the sexual harassment case I was on, for one of the plaintiffs we hung, which is by definition a mistake, because the defendant could not be both guilty and innocent at the same time, yet we could not come to an agreement on it." You just explained perfectly why our justice system is infinitely better than the Internet mob. The courts can hold themselves accountable, admit when they make mistakes and fix their problems, you know like making slavery illegal and immoral. The mob can never do that, once someone is guilty, they stay guilty no matter what comes up or the person does then when all is said and done, they dance in the destruction. Courts seek justice, internet seeks vengeance. "So, are you really trying to suggest that someone simply saying "courts sometimes make mistakes so it's okay to disagree with decisions they make" is somehow a wrong or gross statement? Because that was the implication I got from your post." The person implied all the time and as you would known as i said before are courts are far from perfect. Like i said, i don't stand with vic or against him. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ashley Hakker
Posts: 115 |
|
|||||||||
I am like 99.99% sure that putting the accused on the jury is not proper legal procedure... O_o |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dracofire3
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||||
But in all honesty, i don't really care what happens to this guy. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he is innocent and just went too far. All i know is that if this is enough to tank his career, that better not be the end of it. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
S0crates
 Posts: 227 Location: Banned - Noticed our poor ethics |
|
|||||||||
I can see how you as a private individual could view this as ok, if you spoke as a private person, but ANN is broadcasting information as a news organization that will arguably damage a person's income and potentially give loss of jobs, not to mention mental anguish and/or emotional distress. "Accusations of decades of misconduct" is actually close to the very definition of gossip. There is no proof and no court case, and if there were then I'd assume ANN would share it with us as a one time story. If you want to get technical about it then I believe ANN as an organization will be held to the same standards as the media at large, and Mignoga may perhaps not even count as a public person under the law (sorry all EN VA). To write these sorts of "theories" about an individual, who has little power to fight back, is not the same as doing hit pieces on politicians. Even if one would in actuality dance outside the boundaries of slander and libel laws (defamation), this piece in particular does not bypass those law's intent in my view, and therefor comes off as unethical. Keep in mind that this is why the media at large is so massively disliked. Some journalists may manage to hide defamation behind "someone said" or "having an opinion about", framing them, and in other ways damage their character, either because they know they have no way of fighting back or are elegant enough in their wording to avoid lawsuits. However, the people at large still judge their news organizations based off their action and eventually avoid them if they've had enough. This is not the same as confirmation bias, it's about ethics and doing the job right. In my view this came off as pure bullying, and I don't think I'm alone in that impression. I don't know who this Mignogma is, and I don't care to know quite frankly, but to me this piece only seem to serve the purpose of smearing his name with no real attempt at taking it to trial, all while reporting the "mob justice" in a seemingly "happy ending" angle. That may not be the intent, but it's what it comes off as (to me at least), and as such it would not be ethical (hit pieces never are). Also, according to the same logic, the public would then be justified to judge ANN as guilty of such actions just like some would judge Mignoga as guilty of whatever he is accused of, even if there's no trial (or evidence). That is not a healthy offset, as it would only serve to increased polarization between any and all parties' of such a philosophy in society at large. ANN usually doesn't do anything like this, and I would in no way say that it represent some trend on the page. I'm only voicing my concern that if you are to touch such subjects then wait until the verdict has past or at least do a more thorough job at it. I don't care what any social media mobs has to say about anything, they are not indicative of reality.
Look at the structure of ANN's article: - Mignoga gets fired. - Allegations of misconduct - Accuser's testimony - "Evidence" of guilt (a piggyback ride) - 18 Testimonies, non of which defends his position - States he had to withdraw from most of his shows (mob justice) - He delivers a tearful "apology" (coming off as a guilty verdict) This is a trial of public opinion. The very structure of this piece follows that of a one sided courtroom to such an extent that it's bizarre. Even if ANN's gained some bad habits from other more click baity (dying) media, this is not an acceptable way to frame such a case. We, the readers, spot these kinds of things. To say ANN cover "both sides" because they reached out to him for a comment is not nearly enough. I don't think that's disputable. It only comes off as ANN didn't want to do the grunt work and get/find those people who speak in his support. Even if there are none, then one should present his case where it is valid, not as a throw in at the end. In short I don't think ANN has the specialists to write such articles (nor should they need them, as ANN probably shouldn't write it to begin with). Further on ANN states he apologized, but he more accurately said that he would apologize if something he did in a friendly gesture came off as unpleasant by mistake (for some of the tens of thousands of people he supposedly has greeted over the years). In short he denied everything. Again, this is gossip at best and libel at worst.
How do you know that? ANN have clearly not tried reaching out to anyone other than Vic, and #KickVic. Just looking up those Twitter replies there was this group packet with people of a different impression. This took me 10 seconds to find. Yet you're telling me ANN actively tried to get a different perspective (outside twitter of course) and couldn't find one, not a single one? ANN didn't even bother to write he denied the charges.
I personally wouldn't willingly want to get into the crossfire of anything like this for the most part either, it takes a lot of strength to fight a mob and the motivation isn't always there to do the groundwork properly. If a colleague of mine got into something like this I probably wouldn't even know, just like the only reason I know about this is because ANN wrote about it. Not to mention throwing pearls before swines on twitter serves little use, so what would a "public statement" be shaped like anyways? Though I assume in your case you think he's guilty. You may very well have that opinion, and you may be correct, but if that's based off ANN's reporting or some echo chamber effect, then that's unhealthy. This is why we have trials doing justice and not social media mobs. Either way it is not ethical for ANN to instigate a trial by public opinion. It's not even ethical in my view for ANN to do gossip pieces. Normally the magazines that does such things has it in their brand name (not to mention most of them get sued into the ground eventually when they mess up in the libel laws, which is why those who survive mostly write about rumors of relationships/who's sleeping with who, etc.). Mixing in gossip with real news makes it impossible for people to tell them apart, especially young people who have yet to learn critical thinking. I would urge ANN to always think twice before publishing something that may involve some of its industry's people with crime, and my general recommendation is to avoid it entirely until convictions are given. Surely there's enough factual cases of people getting convicted for the strangest of things that's already on the books, so I don't see why one would need to make things up or theorize (not to mention the anime industry already has a lot going for it, thus relevant news). Last edited by S0crates on Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Cutiebunny
 Posts: 1777 |
|
|||||||||
I would like to believe this. But what will likely happen is that he'll lay low for the next year or two, and then be rehired again for big roles. He makes money for cons and for the dubbing industry. And, as sad as it is, that's what matters. The man has been doing stuff like this for well over a decade and his career has survived. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
GMArcturus
Posts: 56 |
|
|||||||||
So if you are giving a guy a piggyback ride then where do you expect their crotch to go? Are you expecting it to just disappear until you are done? I didn't expect that level of stupidity from people on this site. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Aresef
Posts: 921 Location: MD |
|
|||||||||
|
I found Monica Rial’s tweets to be refreshingly straightforward. But they seem to imply Vic was protected—or at least that his behavior was excused or ignored or tolerated—by somebody or multiple somebodies at Funimation. I wonder who. And why.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
getchman
 He started itPosts: 9140 Location: New Hampshire |
|
|||||||||
|
it seems he's also been replaced in Mononokean season 2 by Ian Sinclair
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
scrwbll19
Posts: 87 |
|
|||||||||
I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but does Fukunaga Gen's departure from Funimation at his previous role have anything to do with this controversy? The timing is a little too good. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group