Dr. Disrespect permanently banned from Twitch

LostCorpse said:
he can just as easly make something up, thats what everyone will think. any messages shown will be fake.
also depends what was on any agreement with the "victim"
if hes "honouring" agreeements like he said in the linked clip then he may not be able to show it.
i'll re-iterate we dont have any statements for the victim. should also tell us something either legal/nda or doesnt want to get involved.
Click to expand...
I can imagine the "victim" giggling themselves to sleep with all the drama they have caused with their shenanigans.

It's like everybody forgot what they were like as teenagers. The way we thought and the stuff that would come out of our mouths would make a sailor blush.
 
Last edited:
I can only assume that all the people defending Dr are all pretty young or atleast don't have kids of their own because even if in the eyes of the law nothing illegal happened all I'm thinking is whats a married guy, with kids in this 40's (estimated guess) doing messaging someone who's 16 to 18 telling inappropriate jokes as he now seems to be putting it
 
NZXT30 said:
I can imagine the "victim" giggling themselves to sleep with all the drama they have caused with their shenanigans.

It's like everybody forgot what they were like as teenagers. The way we thought and the stuff that would come out of our mouths would make a sailor blush.
Click to expand...
I'm 53, and it sends a shiver down my spine when I think about some of the things I got up to in the 80s and 90s. What was acceptable then would land me in hot water now.
 
SpudMaster said:
I can only assume that all the people defending Dr are all pretty young or atleast don't have kids of their own because even if in the eyes of the law nothing illegal happened all I'm thinking is whats a married guy, with kids in this 40's (estimated guess) doing messaging someone who's 16 to 18 telling inappropriate jokes as he now seems to be putting it
Click to expand...
He hasn't done anything with kids, jeez. Calm down. In this case he hasn't even done anything with an adult.
 
Funny how times have changed, what about when famous pop stars date young people even ? god even a very famous rock star started dating a 13 yearold, when he was like 47,(mind you, he had her mothers consent hahah) 1000 x worse, and did not Elvis Presley date/had contact with Pricilla when she was like 14 ? not sure on that one, my point being, there still idolised, even if he did txt someone 16/18, its not as bad as a lot of things that have gone on before or still going on, mind you, did not have the internet then, to get demonised.
 
LostCorpse said:
has it been confirmed what the inappropriate material in this case was?
Click to expand...
Don't think so which is why a lot of people are asking to see the messages. He's gone from saying calling the victim a minor to then just referring to them as age of legal consent.

Technically it might legal but there's the moral standpoint behind it all. If you don't have morals of your own or have some distorted idolised viewpoint then it might all be acceptable to you.
 
Last edited:
SpudMaster said:
Don't think so which is why a lot of people are asking to see the messages. He's gone from saying calling the victim a minor to then just referring to them as age of legal consent.

Technically it might legal but there's the moral standpoint behind it all. If you don't have morals of your own or have some distorted idolised viewpoint then it might all be acceptable to you.
Click to expand...
People aren't judged on your morals.

Wtf are you on about?

He plays video games on the Internet what age of people do you think he's talking to?
 
Last edited:
kitch9 said:
People aren't judged on your morals.
Click to expand...
ow but they are. as soon as you say something is ok they'll be on you.
its been demonstated several times in this thread.



so my understanding at the moment :
1) we still dont know the age of the person involved
2) we dont know were the person resided at the time of the incient
3) we dont know the content of any messages exchanges
4) we dont know what type of inappropriate messages were exchanges (sexting / Jokes / inside views / inside business practices / advise / ect)
5) the issue was originally escalated to authorities who did not persue any legal actions after review.
6) a legal case was taken and a mutual agreed outcome was reached between Twitch and Dr D
7) unclear if original "victim" was involve in the legal proceedings
8) an ex-twitch employee with out all the relavent information leaked information, with the current aimed out come unclear (legal justice / defamation / some one believing they are doing the correct legal thing).
9) a x/twiter post was made by some one, and edited by some one (unclear who or if multiple people have access to the x/twitter account).
10) unclear if there are current legal actions between Dr D and other parties (twitch / Kody / ?)
11) Twitch and Dr D did not part on good terms
12) siveral incidents with Dr D and Twitch staff/twitch con created a "rift"
13) the intentions to meet up with some one at twitch con is unclear and so far neither confirmed or denieyable
14) intentions to persons under the age are unclear.
15) we (the collective) are saying its ok to talk to people above legal age.

does this sound about right?
 
LostCorpse said:
ow but they are. as soon as you say something is ok they'll be on you.
its been demonstated several times in this thread.



so my understanding at the moment :
1) we still dont know the age of the person involved
2) we dont know were the person resided at the time of the incient
3) we dont know the content of any messages exchanges
4) we dont know what type of inappropriate messages were exchanges (sexting / Jokes / inside views / inside business practices / advise / ect)
5) the issue was originally escalated to authorities who did not persue any legal actions after review.
6) a legal case was taken and a mutual agreed outcome was reached between Twitch and Dr D
7) unclear if original "victim" was involve in the legal proceedings
8) an ex-twitch employee with out all the relavent information leaked information, with the current aimed out come unclear (legal justice / defamation / some one believing they are doing the correct legal thing).
9) a x/twiter post was made by some one, and edited by some one (unclear who or if multiple people have access to the x/twitter account).
10) unclear if there are current legal actions between Dr D and other parties (twitch / Kody / ?)
11) Twitch and Dr D did not part on good terms
12) siveral incidents with Dr D and Twitch staff/twitch con created a "rift"
13) the intentions to meet up with some one at twitch con is unclear and so far neither confirmed or denieyable
14) intentions to persons under the age are unclear.
15) we (the collective) are saying its ok to talk to people above legal age.

does this sound about right?
Click to expand...
Over thinking it.

Twitch banned him for supposedly sending sexual messages to a minor. They killed his contract but by sheer luck two big streamers were moving from a competing failed platform so they were OK.

He sued them due to it being lies and they paid him a large 7 figure payout to make him go away quietly. They forgot to tie their ex employees. on a leash so they started spewing the office gossip on X

The rest is just noise.
 
Last edited:
LostCorpse said:
ow but they are. as soon as you say something is ok they'll be on you.
its been demonstated several times in this thread.



so my understanding at the moment :
1) we still dont know the age of the person involved
2) we dont know were the person resided at the time of the incient
3) we dont know the content of any messages exchanges
4) we dont know what type of inappropriate messages were exchanges (sexting / Jokes / inside views / inside business practices / advise / ect)
5) the issue was originally escalated to authorities who did not persue any legal actions after review.
6) a legal case was taken and a mutual agreed outcome was reached between Twitch and Dr D
7) unclear if original "victim" was involve in the legal proceedings
8) an ex-twitch employee with out all the relavent information leaked information, with the current aimed out come unclear (legal justice / defamation / some one believing they are doing the correct legal thing).
9) a x/twiter post was made by some one, and edited by some one (unclear who or if multiple people have access to the x/twitter account).
10) unclear if there are current legal actions between Dr D and other parties (twitch / Kody / ?)
11) Twitch and Dr D did not part on good terms
12) siveral incidents with Dr D and Twitch staff/twitch con created a "rift"
13) the intentions to meet up with some one at twitch con is unclear and so far neither confirmed or denieyable
14) intentions to persons under the age are unclear.
15) we (the collective) are saying its ok to talk to people above legal age.

does this sound about right?
Click to expand...
Seems to be the gist of it. We basically don't know **** other than what he admitted to and now being told it was some kind of elaborate setup.... He now uses the words 'legal age of consent' to describe the victim so yeah legal but too young for an 40 year old. Thats 16 - 18 depending on state.
 
I especially love how he deflected and moved on with haste from the suggestion of showing the chat logs (he could easily hide the username so that's not an issue) by calling people children for daring to ask for evidence.

Suspect with what he said previously about how it was inappropriate was accurate and knows releasing it would only damage his 'try to move on' approach which I don't think really matters now as this suspicious scent aint washing any time soon. The worst facet of this is him growing a cognitive dissonance over the matter of moral impropriety, becoming overconfident and thinking he can get away with it again whilst forgetting all the eyes that are just waiting for him to do it.
 
kitch9 said:
Over thinking it.

Twitch banned him for supposedly sending sexual messages to a minor. They killed his contract but by sheer luck two big streamers were moving from a competing failed platform so they were OK.

He sued them due to it being lies and they paid him a large 7 figure payout to make him go away quietly. They forgot to tie their ex employees. on a leash so they started spewing the office gossip on X

The rest is just noise.
Click to expand...
i was more trying to outlinbing what we know and confirm. the sexual messages to a minor wasnt as best i know confirmed and has been only reported by an ex- twitch.
Dr D's X message said inappropriate as i remember.

the question is :
what do we know factually and accuratly
and
how has it been confirmed.
if im wrong i am hoping some one can correct me and link me to the information
 
I think ultimately it boils down to what is meant by inappropriate in this instance and why he was trying to meet up with a minor/some who's at age of legal consent.

Another thing of note is that his streamer buddies don't seem to have his back or are willing to let it slide. A few people could do with paying attention to Nickmercs tweet from 7 Sept
 
SpudMaster said:
A few people could do with paying attention to Nickmercs tweet from 7 Sept
Click to expand...
Can't see the post but is this the same NickMercs who talks about Morals then contunies to push/promote/ram gambling sites/codes down minors throats every 30 seconds on his streams?

Nice guy.
 
SpudMaster said:
I think ultimately it boils down to what is meant by inappropriate in this instance and why he was trying to meet up with a minor/some who's at age of legal consent.

Another thing of note is that his streamer buddies don't seem to have his back or are willing to let it slide. A few people could do with paying attention to Nickmercs tweet from 7 Sept
Click to expand...
What did nick say?

If I was a mod I would make it a bannable offense to tease information that can be easily provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom