this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
130 points (88.7% liked)
Games
16387 readers
758 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, so bonkers. Naming a specific charity for 10 years and then to claim that all that time was spent to find the right charity is such an obviously dumb lie. Before the golf tournament thing came out, he could just have claimed "Oops, I could have sworn I made a recurring donation and I just didn't look at the numbers all that time. Seems I made an error, my bad, sorry." and nobody could have disproven it having been a dumb human error.
He mentioned he knew the number hadn't been donated as of 2021, so it's entirely possible he wasn't directly involved in the charity other than running donation drives. Yes he was an officer that whole time, but it's very reasonable to say that a sibling was doing most of the charity work.
This doesn't absolve him of responsibility (he's an officer, so he should be aware), and he still didn't donate it for two years. But it's entirely possible he didn't know it hadn't been donated for 7-8 years, and after that point he just followed the same script he'd been using. Again, it doesn't absolve him, but it does provide some important context.
Then again, this assumes what he said was true. I don't have any reason to doubt it though, because he basically admitted to multiple allegations in the same call.