Weeb Wars / AnimeGate / #KickVic / #IStandWithVic / #vickicksback - General Discussion Thread

Also isn't his brother a damn sex pest?

You're confusing Greg Ayres with Sarah Widenheft's brother, Brad Wiedenheft, who is Sarah Widenheft's brother, who was recently convicted of possession and distribution of CP.

(Incidentally, according to Dahlin, Greg was accused of sexual assault by some lady years ago despite him being potentially the most homosexual individual in the Western hemisphere.)
 
Ahhh... yes... Monica and Jamie's gay photo op. That shit was cute. I know KV loved to complain about Vic not showing up even though Ron didn't show up either... Though to be honest, the only reason I think Monica and Jamie went was because they made arrangements with Sharon. Since no one was required to show up anyway. But hey! Try to earn those pity points, ladies! It's not working on me.

Speaking of Steve Blum, that reminds me that he canceled his appearance at Anime Matsuri for this year, along with another voice actress. I never heard of her before... Her name was Elizabeth or Mary Elizabeth something... Makes me wonder if they pulled out because of Funimation putting pressure on them to do so or simply because they hate Vic. Hmm... At all the cons that he showed up to, it also makes me wonder how many VAs cancelled because of his appearance. Maybe that is just a weird coincidence though. The two VAs did have ties to Funimation. Reuben showed up, but he doesn't have any obligations to Funi.

They divorced both their spouses and immediately hooked up with each other. Methinks they were fucking as far back as the Bebop dub
 
I thought Sean was already hated for being a thin skinned prick.

He rubbed the fans the wrong way because fans asked why rosé sounded British and he gave a usual douche "I'm An ArTisT" rant in 2017. His good will with fans went down with the kc incident with canceling Peter kalmis and the vic drama.
 
Last edited:
Schemmel married his 2nd wife 1 month after divorcing his first. Lulz.

Really now?
That makes me feel that the accusations about him being scummy are likely true because that's a pretty scummy thing to do.

Does that mean he cheated on his ex? I wonder what led up to that and for him to throw himself into marriage so quickly. Are these women just beards for him to let Sabat fist his asshole and use him like a sock puppet?

So many questions.
 
Really now?
That makes me feel that the accusations about him being scummy are likely true because that's a pretty scummy thing to do.

Does that mean he cheated on his ex? I wonder what led up to that and for him to throw himself into marriage so quickly. Are these women just beards for him to let Sabat fist his asshole and use him like a sock puppet?

So many questions.

"
Personal Life
  • Sean Schemmel has been married twice. His first marriage was to Melissa Denise Cox on November 20, 1993. The marriage ended in a divorce on February 19, 1998.

  • He married Melodee Lenz, the actress who provided the voice for Marron in the Dragon Ball franchise, on April 23, 1998.
" Correction 2 months. But still lol is this The Bachelor?
 
"
Personal Life
  • Sean Schemmel has been married twice. His first marriage was to Melissa Denise Cox on November 20, 1993. The marriage ended in a divorce on February 19, 1998.

  • He married Melodee Lenz, the actress who provided the voice for Marron in the Dragon Ball franchise, on April 23, 1998.
" Correction 2 months. But still lol is this The Bachelor?

Smells like casting couch
 
To finish a post I started yesterday then got busy:

Thinking on other things that might serve as a barrier to settlement, Funimation, Moronica, and Jamie might actually prefer paying Vic a monetary settlement over making apologies and retractions. They wouldn't have to embarrass themselves by admitting to being incompetent assholes. They could spin it as Moronica and Jamie not having the money to keep fighting Vic's "war chest", and Funimation's bean counters finding it cheaper to pay Vic to go away than to keep paying lawyers to fight the lawsuit. That generally might hold true even all the way to losing at a trial, where they could spin it as the jury got it wrong, but they couldn't afford to appeal. However going back to settlement and the current mediation, that sort of spin won't be available until after their TCPA bid fails.

Meanwhile just money is fairly incompatible with Vic's goals seeing as far as I can tell, Vic wants to be able to move on with his life as though they'd had the honesty and decency to quietly fire him for the real reasons they wanted him gone. However to do that he needs one of the following:

-The defendants(and any other accusers he has to go after) to settle with retractions and apologies that make it clear that they made this up out of a combination of jealousy, dislike, malice, and incompetence. Plus no money from Vic going to them.
-A trial, preferably a jury trial not a bench trial, which finds that they defamed him and interfered with his contracts, and issues a large judgement against them for it.
-The defendants settling with a binding agreement to stop defaming Vic or interfering with his contracts, and paying him enough money to make it clear that they're paying solely to avoid an inevitable loss or the humiliation of apologizing. That is to say, more money than they could possibly spend defending themselves.

Settling for just paying Vic is only compatible with the third one. However the amount of money Vic would need is almost certain to be more than they'd be willing to pay him at this time. Until the TCPA is ruled on and the appeals are settled, they can still potentially get out of this quick with relatively little spent compared to what they might eventually spend. There'd also be the matter of the spin they would do, but they'll do that for anything other than the first option, and possibly even do it then.

All told I really don't see them being willing to genuinely try and settle until all the TCPA stuff is done. There's simply too much potential good in it for them that it outways the benefit for them in just about every scenario that Vic would find acceptable.
 
Got to love that all these VAs have a tendency to cheat on their partners, but Vic is a monster because he cheated on Michele. Don't get me wrong, I think cheating is pretty scummy, but the man doesn't deserve to be treated like a monster for it. Steve, Mary Elizabeth, and Sean are all scumbags. Vic had shown regret for his actions but still gets reprimanded... Do the other VAs get shit on for cheating? Probably not.

I always hated people who would just get engaged like a week into dating. But to get married within two months after a God damn divorce? Talk about being on the rebound... Cause if he wasn't seeing her on the side before then... that's really fucking stupid.
 
Really now?
That makes me feel that the accusations about him being scummy are likely true because that's a pretty scummy thing to do.

Does that mean he cheated on his ex? I wonder what led up to that and for him to throw himself into marriage so quickly. Are these women just beards for him to let Sabat fist his asshole and use him like a sock puppet?

So many questions.
Part of me think it's separation/divorce, date new, divorce is finalized, new marriage. I think that's the common way it's done.
 
How much leeway do mediations have regarding evidence? New evidence specifically?

Ty supposedly has enough to sue Iago. And they may have a source close to Monica and Jamie. Would Ty be able to explain or insinuate that he has more information than he is letting on? He can't prematurely reveal his source publicly, but a confidential mediation where Monica and Jamie could get in trouble if they take any actions against said source.
 
How much leeway do mediations have regarding evidence? New evidence specifically?

Ty supposedly has enough to sue Iago. And they may have a source close to Monica and Jamie. Would Ty be able to explain or insinuate that he has more information than he is letting on? He can't prematurely reveal his source publicly, but a confidential mediation where Monica and Jamie could get in trouble if they take any actions against said source.
I believe in mediations you're not bringing up any new evidence that will matter. Anything you show or bring up won't be useable outside of that mediation. They're confidential. Neither in appeals. The point of arbitration is to deal with the dispute that's there. Mediation isn't there to argue but to settle and come to an agreement.

Ty revealing new info at mediation would not make any sense if the goal is to settle. Him being a business lawyer first, Ty knows that settling is the best thing that anyone involved can do because, ideally, no one wants to be in a lawsuit.
 
How much leeway do mediations have regarding evidence? New evidence specifically?

Ty supposedly has enough to sue Iago. And they may have a source close to Monica and Jamie. Would Ty be able to explain or insinuate that he has more information than he is letting on? He can't prematurely reveal his source publicly, but a confidential mediation where Monica and Jamie could get in trouble if they take any actions against said source.
I believe in mediations you're not bringing up any new evidence that will matter. Anything you show or bring up won't be useable outside of that mediation. They're confidential. Neither in appeals. The point of arbitration is to deal with the dispute that's there. Mediation isn't there to argue but to settle and come to an agreement.

Ty revealing new info at mediation would not make any sense if the goal is to settle. Him being a business lawyer first, Ty knows that settling is the best thing that anyone involved can do because, ideally, no one wants to be in a lawsuit.

Mediation, if it's handled properly, shouldn't be about legal procedures, evidence or looking back at problems, but about looking for mutually agreeable solutions. The problem here is that the mediator is a lawyer, and lawyers have a particular mindset that isn't all that suited to mediation.

Nevertheless, if he's competent, he'll be looking for something that they can agree on going forward. I've been maintaining that no such thing can exist in this situation; Vic and the defendants want mutually incompatible things that cannot be mitigated in compromise, as there is very little common ground between "why don't you just die?" and "I want to live!"

If they get anything remotely resembling an apology fro Moronica I'll be immensely surprised.
 
Mediation, if it's handled properly, shouldn't be about legal procedures, evidence or looking back at problems, but about looking for mutually agreeable solutions. The problem here is that the mediator is a lawyer, and lawyers have a particular mindset that isn't all that suited to mediation.

Nevertheless, if he's competent, he'll be looking for something that they can agree on going forward. I've been maintaining that no such thing can exist in this situation; Vic and the defendants want mutually incompatible things that cannot be mitigated in compromise, as there is very little common ground between "why don't you just die?" and "I want to live!"

If they get anything remotely resembling an apology fro Moronica I'll be immensely surprised.

I was thinking that if there was some information that showed Monica and Jamie that there really wasn't a point to fighting any longer, that they were in reality just being used as meatshields for Sabat, they would reconsider their position.

From the sound of it, mediation can handle any and all topics so this might be an opportunity to force the defendants to listen in person instead of being filtered through Lemoine.
 
I was thinking that if there was some information that showed Monica and Jamie that there really wasn't a point to fighting any longer, that they were in reality just being used as meatshields for Sabat, they would reconsider their position.

From the sound of it, mediation can handle any and all topics so this might be an opportunity to force the defendants to listen in person instead of being filtered through Lemoine.
Uh...it doesn't really make much sense to me to imagine a smoking gun that doesn't really exist, so I'm not exactly following your train of thought here on what I can only describe as a genie in a bottle scenario. Regardless, as Teriyaki and I already said: mediation isn't a hearing based on dispute and presentation of argument, but about finding a way to disengage the argument before further proceedings. In fact, both parties may not even be in the same rooms during mediation. That's how much of a dispute it isn't intended to be.
 
Uh...it doesn't really make much sense to me to imagine a smoking gun that doesn't really exist, so I'm not exactly following your train of thought here on what I can only describe as a genie in a bottle scenario. Regardless, as Teriyaki and I already said: mediation isn't a hearing based on dispute and presentation of argument, but about finding a way to disengage the argument before further proceedings. In fact, both parties may not even be in the same rooms during mediation. That's how much of a dispute it isn't intended to be.

Ty can use the confidentiality of the mediation to lay out the case against the defendants. It seems like the mediator has to help make assessments on the strengths and weaknesses of each party involved.

I understand that mediation is supposed to find an alternative way of resolving the issue. In order to do that would require leverage of some kind.

My point being that we don't know everything Ty has.
 
Uh...it doesn't really make much sense to me to imagine a smoking gun that doesn't really exist, so I'm not exactly following your train of thought here on what I can only describe as a genie in a bottle scenario. Regardless, as Teriyaki and I already said: mediation isn't a hearing based on dispute and presentation of argument, but about finding a way to disengage the argument before further proceedings. In fact, both parties may not even be in the same rooms during mediation. That's how much of a dispute it isn't intended to be.
Sometimes getting people face-to-face in the presence of a neutral third party can bring out the real reasons for a conflict in a way that isn't possible outside that context. I think it's safe to say that Rial/Toye and Vic haven't communicated face to face (or even at all) since the start of the year, or possibly earlier, so they've been operating in a bit of a vacuum as far as responses go.

I've taken part in mediations in the past that, at first glance, seemed to be about irreconcilable differences between parties, on the level of wanting one another dead, over events that had taken on a huge form in the minds of everyone involved. Once they sat down to face one another, the real reason for the conflict would come out and it would be something so meaninglessly petty that even the party alleging they were wronged would sort of slow down and realise how stupid what they were saying actually was. Often it was something that the other party wasn't even aware of, let alone causing deliberately.

Rial is jealous of Vic's success. She's an ageing actress in her decline and he's been rising the entire time she's been sinking. That's her vindictive reason for trying to destroy him.

Vic had no idea this was an issue.

Now I'm not optimistic that she'll actually be able to admit that in mediation, because she's spun herself this very public narrative that Vic is a rapist paedophile predator, and that widely broadcast, highly public aspect generally isn't in play in most mediations. She'll want to save face and persist rather than admit, in that same public place, that she lied. But. But. I've seen weirder climb-downs, once everyone was sat around the table and facing just how tiny, stupid and pointless their beef really is.

So it might happen. Probably not, but might.

:optimistic: It'd be nice to be able to rate your own posts.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes getting people face-to-face in the presence of a neutral third party can bring out the real reasons for a conflict in a way that isn't possible outside that context. I think it's safe to say that Rial/Toye and Vic haven't communicated face to face (or even at all) since the start of the year, or possibly earlier, so they've been operating in a bit of a vacuum as far as responses go.

I've taken part in mediations in the past that, at first glance, seemed to be about irreconcilable differences between parties, on the level of wanting one another dead, over events that had taken on a huge form in the minds of everyone involved. Once they sat down to face one another, the real reason for the conflict would come out and it would be something so meaninglessly petty that even the party alleging they were wronged would sort of slow down and realise how stupid what they were saying actually was. Often it was something that the other party wasn't even aware of, let alone causing deliberately.

Rial is jealous of Vic's success. She's an ageing actress in her decline and he's been rising the entire time she's been sinking. That's her vindictive reason for trying to destroy him.

Vic had no idea this was an issue.

Now I'm not optimistic that she'll actually be able to admit that in mediation, because she's spun herself this very public narrative that Vic is a rapist paedophile predator, and that widely broadcast, highly public aspect generally isn't in play in most mediations. She'll want to save face and persist rather than admit, in that same public place, that she lied. But. But. I've seen weirder climb-downs, once everyone was sat around the table and facing just how tiny, stupid and pointless their beef really is.

So it might happen. Probably not, but might.
Think you are giving Rial's ability to "introspect" too much credit, way too much credit. The second people are outright lying in sworn court statements - they have already chosen their hill to die on. There will be no mediation, only anger, and a cold sweat coming from the KV side knowing that even with Chupp trying not to do his job, the case still moves forward, and he will get BTFO in appeals. Justice isnt going to let lazy fruits end this, its coming.
 
Back