Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From: 1 Date: On Tuesday, 25 June 2024 at 15:2 Subject: The Truth Reg: Dr Disrespect To:
I'm sending this to multiple known sources in the gaming news arena. I hope this is taken in the spirit in which it is intended.
I will keep this inbox open for 12 hours from now then it will be gone forever.
Here's what actually happened but what cannot be said publicly by the Dr Disrespect camp.
There were whispers between Guy and a 17 year old on Twitch, the age was not known at the time. These were messages in relation to how to scale new channels using tried and testing methods. Behind the scenes, this was a service that was offered by members of the Dr Disrespect team under a different brand name. The brand name used could be interpreted many ways. The transcripts were part of the court proceedings and as outlined show no wrong doing nor illegality. The issue on the Twitch side was how some of the messages, and brand name used, could be interpreted differently - and was interpreted differently by certain members of the Twitch team that had taken a dislike to Dr Disrespect due to the bathroom incident. The internal feeling was that it would "only be a matter of time" before they "got him" on something. This one however was way wide of the mark and wasn't what they thought it was.
This became the result of a LOT of back and forth at Twitch, with various people in the "let's get him" camp and others in the "we can't move forward with this" camp.
His whispers were being monitored because a core group of influential people within twitch wanted him gone.
The whispers in question were actually from many, many, many weeks prior to his last stream. The initial explanation provided to him during the termination communication was "inappropriate behaviour not befitting of the Twitch brand" - he's right in what he said at the time of his go live on YouTube of "we still don't know" because for a long time Twitch could not commit to an explanation over and above the "inappropriate behaviour not befitting of the Twitch brand" until the matter went to court.
The matter went to court and it was found in discovery that not only did a group of Twitch employees conspire to "get him" but they also broke data protention internal policy and CCPA regulations by disclosing to a third party who he also had a contract with what they perceived to have happened.
Internally, the argument on their side became "why else would he be messaging someone that young" implying only a sinister perspective. For the avoidance of doubt, there was no "sexting" as implied by a former twitch employee. There were messages but not of that nature. Dr Disrespect was the one who initiated legal proceedings and settled because of the fact that once something like this is said about someone, it cannot be unsaid - and there would always be some, perhaps not fans, who would say well there's no smoke without fire. We have seen many people accused of things that turned out not to be true in the past, but by that time the damage was done. He agreed to the "no party admits any wrongdoing" join statement purely because he - understandably - wanted all of this kept quiet. The fact that a former twitch staff member has now made this tweet has changed things considerably - it's "out there" now and can't be walked back. Dr Disrespect is furious that he cannot respond to this properly because his lawyers are telling him that it'll make the agreement invalid and he may be forced to pay back the settlement that he won - I'll say that again, that he won. There will be legal avenues explored on this one and it will likely ultimately manifest itself in a huge damages claim against twitch for this coming out. It's clear in the industry that they were absolutely raging when he re-appeared on Youtube and came back bigger than ever. When he publicly backed Nickmercs recently, the same group of current and ex-twitch employees tried to identify if their compromise separation agreements from twitch would be nullified if they spoke out and only one had the guts to try after testing the waters numerous times before to sell concert tickets.
This person would have largely been fine legally if he had not mentioned the word "sexting" - because it was all about damaging Dr Disrespect's reputation. But because they used that word - expect legal proceedings to get under way quickly, because the transcripts will absolutely, categorically show that there was no "sexting" but merely communications with someone who turned out to be a minor, that was not known at the time, that certain people within Twitch who had an agenda against Dr Disrespect pounced and made it fit their agenda with zero proof.
I am a former twitch emplovee. I now work elsewhere. I will not be identifying myself and I will not answer any questions about who I am - however I will answer some questions in relation to this case as I was very close to this at the time.
He deserves the right to have some transparency but he's tied legally in what he can say until the new proceedings progress. He has the right to some of the story being out there even if he cant be the one to say it so I am sending this as an independent party who is fully aware of the facts and feel very uncomfortable with what I've seen thrown at him in the past few days based on the agenda of a small group of people who did not like him.
You should also ask yourself, why are some of these people no longer at twitch? Because they broke policy and in some cases the law by breaching data protection regulations. Many people were dealt with as a result of this and lost their jobs.
You have a duty to balance the reporting of this until such times as court proceedings provide the clarity you should have waited for but didn't.
He's been good to you all, he's not what is said and he deserves better. Especially considering he agreed for their behaviour not to be made public as he wanted to protect the income streams of others.
The Midnight Society piece is an example of a lot of people getting cold feet, they asked him about it - and he told them messages existed but they weren't in that nature reported, but couldn't share them as part of the settlement and the decision was made to put out that statement in haste. That was an impulsive move that they'll regret later.
learning.nspcc.org.uk
