One thing is this person didn't mention the other people.

Telling this story this way isn't likely to be seen as attacking someone else / not a huge benefit to them / perhaps LESS of an incentive to lie..

From the article, it sounds like the only reason they didn't name the people was that their lawyer told them not to.

That is not correct. I have no interest in damaging anybody. That is why I did not write names and other things that happened in the article. He has already been banned from other conferences.

I am trying to protect myself based on what happened and other people told me, I assure you the last few weeks have been a hell for me. My only objective is to be able to run my conference as I want and not to be harrassed.

But you did identify the woman on Twitter. I won't link to it because I don't think we should share it further, but someone posted it in this discussion.

I sympathize but I think the court of public opinion is unlikely to do anything other than further escalate things.

I watched this unfold on Twitter, and it was a third-party related to the woman that decided to "out" themselves.

It's not an easy position for a conference organizer to be in.

Maybe, but that doesn't change that there's not a lot of value here as far as any given he said he said type situation.

I can belive the writer, it really changes nothing as far as who they're describing as I've still no idea who they are / the author isn't really changing my opinion about anything.

If the author cared about "the truth" and "their side of the story" to "clear their name", names would have been named; details would have been detailed. The lack of those things might be a clue that it wasn't the point, but rather a warning to others that might follow the conference organizer path.

Believe the author or not, but there are some fucking Looney Tunes folks out there. If you go gathering a crowd of people above a critical mass, you're going to have to deal with a few of them at some point. That should be your take-away.

Until evidence is provided, we can't. Given their legal counsel recommends against sharing evidence, we may never get the evidence. All this is right now is an attempt at continuity that will show later if they story has deviated from what they claim or has remained consistent.

So, there is no need to assume otherwise at this point. They are working through the legal system, and haven't named anyone. That's why you don't see any evidence presented, or names, or anything else like that.

Easier said than done when you're a leader, event organizer, company executive or manager. Etc.

> Sorry if I offended someone!

It's like you didn't actually read the replies. They state counterarguments; they don't show anyone taking any offense.

I was referring to the instant -5 downvoting seconds after posting, which usually only happens if you insult someone or offend. I really worried I said something rude!

Or maybe we just disagree with you...

he had sponsors and others reaching out to him to ask what is going on. I don't think they plan on turning off twitter too.

Why does he care what the sponsors think? His problem would be solved if he stops paying attention to Twitter, his sponsors, money, friendships, etc... /s

Because sponsors pay for the conference he was trying to organize. No sponsors, no money, no conference.

He was harassed at a conference, probably in violation of their CoC, and felt threatened enough to leave. Sounds like real world harm to me.

That was my takeaway - she's doing to him exactly what he allowed other people to do to her. He's finding that he doesn't like it.

Did we read the same article? He turned her speaker position down because of her pattern of vengeful, childlike behavior. She acted completely in line with what her reputation would suggest and pursued a personal harassment campaign.

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you enumerate what he allowed people to do to her, and what she did to him? That way we can compare directly.

That isn’t mentioned anywhere in the linked article.

> alleged pattern of vengeful, childlike behavior

The conference organizer denied a speaker position in a conference. All that happened in private.

The person and a third-party engaged (allegedly) in doxxing and public shaming.

Even if the conference organizer was in the wrong, there's a world of difference between those two things.

Public shaming using false allegations of stalking and harassment.

"she's doing to him exactly what he allowed other people to do to her"

Please explain that. What did he 'allow' 'other people' to 'do' to her?

He's handling this without naming anyone publicly, and going through proper channels. She did the exact opposite, making this public and threatening him enough that he felt compelled to leave a conference where she was apparently harassing him.

Not quite the same thing.