Forum

Whether Daman Mills likes it or not, his own actions will be his legacy.

kazamatsuri wrote:

Duncan seems pretty adamant that the retracting was his own choice, and not due to any coercion as seen here.

You are missing the point which is that Duncan didn't state anywhere in his retraction that he's retracting because he's admitting the allegations are false, only that he doesn't want to cause more potential harm, which can mean many things and is not an admission that he lied or proof Daman is innocent.

Quote:

If you haven't been subject to any of the common stereotypes that LGBTQ+ people, then I'm happy for you, and I'm glad you've been living a good life. But you can't say those stereotypes don't exist. If you don't think this is an example of such, your call to make. I won't go into all the different stereotypes that exist about all the different disenfranchised minorities because that's not what we're here to talk about. It doesn't always mean that it's done with malicious intent, but it's a reality.

You are missing the point entirely which is just because negative stereotypes of all gay people being predators or sexual harassers exists does not mean all gay people are good and there are no gay people who do terrible things or that gay people who commit something like assault should not be held accountable for their behavior. To downplay any accusation against a gay person as being rooted automatically in homophobia is to belittle and downplay the struggles male victims have in coming forward and makes more victims afraid to speak out if they're automatically being accused of having sinister motives. There is zero evidence that Daman has been treated differently by ANN's writing staff than how they would treat a straight man with accusations. To accuse the ANN staff and other forum members here of homophobia is a serious charge, especially as some of the ANN staff and forum members themselves are LGBTQIA+ and you're also making things more difficult if actual homophobia occurs for people speak out by trivializing homophobia by making any criticism of a gay man into a homophobic act.

Quote:

I don't see how it's such a ridiculous point to make. If anyone has a link to any article where ANN or any other accredited news agency has put out to the public a story of sexual misconduct about the opposite sex without the identity of the alleged victim being revealed, I happy to be proven wrong.

I'm pretty sure it's standard journalistic practices to keep victims' names anonymous unless they otherwise come forward themselves. You are not entitled to know the real identities of alleged victims.

The early parts of the thread were going crazy - specially hypothesizing that 'Duncan' was pressured into retracting.

Please do wait until more info or more statements come out about the matter to argue against each other out of respect for both parties - this is still a developing story. Heck, y'all shouldn't even be arguing at all out of respect! ANN Rule 1, everybody.

I do agree with part of kazamatsuri's post said, specifically:

Quote:

I was skeptical of the allegations to begin with because I saw some serious RED FLAGS in Duncan's original story, and claims seemed to be embellished quite a bit

Quote:

Even after the alleged victim fully retracted his claims, you say unequivocally without further research that it must be because because of legal intimidation

Quote:

Even without his retraction, the part about underaged "statutory rape" is out of the question, given that the first alleged incident didn't take place until Duncan was 16, the legal age of consent in Ohio.

Whether or not anything that occurred is classified as statutory rape, at the end of the day, Duncan has made it clear that he never consented to what Daman had (allegedly) done to him. He had repeatedly made his boundaries clear, but Daman didn’t respect them.

Um, did ANN really delete my post, which linked to primary sources that provide additional information about a rape accusation against a voice actor? Seriously? I would have expected that ANN of all places would want to show the sides of both the victim and the assailant and would welcome such supporting documentation:

Tempest wrote:

Unfortunately this article [about Mills and Duncan] only shows the alleged victim's side of things, and he has chosen what to share. There's enough material in the evidence that he has provided to warrant an article, but it is still one-sided.

Because Mills declined to comment, his side of the story is missing.

Shame on you, ANN.

Mirvana wrote:

Hence why I said "questionable-consent", not r*pe.

I'm not saying Todd should have been blacklisted. I personally won't buy prints/autographs or attend his panels any more, but I'm not gonna boycott a con that invites him either. I'm just using his situation and it's similarities (though, no, they are not a 1:1 parallel) to frame what I expect as to how we may see Daman's play out. Companies like Funimation/BangZoom never officially came out and sad anything on Todd's situation, even if some directors may have privately decided not to cast him in projects they head anymore. And as I said before, since neither's actions occurred at the studio property, or otherwise directly involved them (such as in Vic's scenario, which is why he was blacklisted BEFORE his lawsuit), nor were they criminally charged/arrested (as with Scott), those studios don't have much incentive other than public pressure to issue any sort of statement, so I'm just not holding my breath waiting for one.

The reason I used the word rape is because that's the word Pridemore used, and when victims say that's what happened we should listen to their words. Even though the accusation turned out to be false in that case, we still shouldn't make a habit out of dancing around it or diminishing it by calling it something else. (What is 'questionable-consent' even supposed to mean anyway? There is either consent or there is not.)

Anyhow, I brought up the outcome of Haberkorn's situation not because I was making a case that he should or shouldn't be blacklisted but because I wanted to show that in his situation, producers had access to additional information that they could use to make their decision about whether they want to work with him anymore. In Duncan's case here, it doesn't look like Mills is ready to or wants to speak about the situation from his point of view, which is of course perfectly fine since it's his personal decision.

But Mills's actions don't need to have occurred in the studio for producers to decide what to do about him. Employers can use any information about a person's public or private life that they find to decide whether to hire someone (as long as employers are not enforcing the hiring discrimination of protected peoples, of course). In Mills's case, producers might still benefit from additional information coming from Mills himself should he eventually decide to provide it. Otherwise, there's plenty from Duncan and from the way this case is playing out for them to decide how to proceed.

Your original comment said 'we have precedent for how this'll potentially affect Daman's career' by comparing it to Haberkorn's situation, and my reply was meant to show that it's so far from 'a 1:1 parallel' that it may not even be a fair comparison due to the stark difference in available information, so it shouldn't be considered precedent-setting.

Kendall TV wrote:

(1)Um, did ANN really delete my post, which linked to...

(2)Shame on you, ANN.

(3)What is 'questionable-consent' even supposed to mean anyway? There is either consent or there is not.

(4)... it doesn't look like Mills is ready to or wants to speak about the situation from his point of view, which is of course perfectly fine since it's his personal decision.

(5)But Mills's actions don't need to have occurred in the studio for producers to decide what to do about him.

(6)... it shouldn't be considered precedent-setting.

1 - It was potentially more likely deleted because you had like 7 or 8 links, which they might've considered excessive.

2 - For admitting they reached out for Daman's side (which he didn't provide) and therefore knew the article would lack? Yeah yeah, shame on ANN for having *checks notes* journalistic integrity.

3 - Kind of a self-explanatory phrase I'd think? Consent can be "given" under some circumstances that one might consider dubious or QUESTIONABLE even if not considered outright, immediately objectionable.

4 - Then why are you mad at ANN for not having his side in the article? Just because Daman makes a "personal decision" not to share his side publicly doesn't mean the situation is unworthy of being reported on or an outlet should be ashamed just for doing so.

5 - Correct, which is why I was saying exactly that earlier. MY point was that those companies have no necessity to inform *US* of any decisions they do(n't) make. They don't HAVE to put out a tweet or PR release saying any person was blacklisted/recast/slapped-on-the-wrist if they don't want to. They (or individuals such as directors) can just do those things if they decide. They aren't obligated to share with the rest of the class.

6 - Precedent just means an earlier (read: PRECEDING) scenario used as an example/guide for a later, similar circumstance. It neither requires nor implies a perfect 1:1, 100% comparison. Saying "I'm using Todd and precedent for Daman" is saying "I see similarities between Todd's and Daman's scenarios and am tempering my expectations accordingly", not "These scenarios are exactly the same and I can therefore see into the future somehow".

I am no legal expert, but what Daman is claimed to have done sounds like sexual assault. I have seen some people on Twitter call him a "pedo". Well, they would be wrong:
Ephebophilia-Attracted to someone between 15-19.
Hebephilia-Atrraction to someone that is 11-14.
Pedo-Those that are pre-pubescent (typically 10 and younger).
a. Being attracted is one thing but acting on it in whatever mediums is/are another.

Also, a person claiming to have a #MeToo-type story later withdrawing their claims against the accused is not necessarily an admission that the claimant did a false claim. I can see why a person might think that Duncan was lying by Duncan withdrawing such claims. Personally, I still don't know who to believe.

Kendall TV wrote:

Tempest wrote:

Unfortunately this article [about Mills and Duncan] only shows the alleged victim's side of things, and he has chosen what to share. There's enough material in the evidence that he has provided to warrant an article, but it is still one-sided.

Because Mills declined to comment, his side of the story is missing.

Shame on you, ANN.

Why? They reached out to him and he declined to comment. That's on him, not them. They can't force him to speak to the press..

Accusations are confirmed false by Duncan himself. See link below for newest info.

Article: animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2022-03-17/man-says-his-allegations-against-daman-mills-were-fabricated/.183728

Thread: animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3172373&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Man Withdraws Allegations Against Evangelion Voice Actor Daman Mills

The Quintessential Quintuplets Manga Gets New Honeymoon Anime

Arknights: Rise from Ember TV Anime Announced

BLUELOCK THE MOVIE -EPISODE NAGI- Anime Film Review

Interview: Author Akihiro Nishino on Bottle George, His New Stop-Motion Animated Film

The Spring 2024 Light Novel Guide

SAND LAND Video Game Review

This Week in Games - Atlus With the Old, In With the New

The Story of Suikoden

This Week in Anime - What's Weekly Shonen Jump's Next Big Manga?

	Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

Forum - View topicINTEREST: Man Withdraws Allegations Against Evangelion Voice Actor Daman Mills

Forum

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Man Withdraws Allegations Against Evangelion Voice Actor Daman Mills