Jack Thompson Rescinds Offer

Goalmaster3000 writes to tell us Joystiq.com is reporting that Jack Thompson has rescinded his offer of a $10,000 donation to charity if a video game were made to fit his model. Recently a group of GTA modders cooked up a scenario to fit the bill but apparently Thompson is claiming that his piece 'A Modest Video Game Proposal' was intended as satire that the video game community was not bright enough to grasp. Perhaps Thompson was just afraid he was going to have to sue himself? Update: 10/17 20:02 GMT by SM: It appears that the Penny Arcade crew has taken the next step by donating the promised $10,000... in Jack Thompson's name.

Comments

Ugh

[Enigma_Man]

The fact that the guy thinks he needs to explain that his request was satire just means he didn't understand that what he got back was infact satirical. You might say he's being sassed, and doesn't even realize it.

-Jesse

This man is a moron

[Tomchu]

I saw the entirety of a back-and-forth e-mail conversation that a 14-year-old gamer had with this moron. It was hot on the heels of the Hot Coffee debacle, and the kid was actually very well-spoken. He brought up excellent arguments, rebutted points made by Thompson, and continued to press his original point.

Thompson kept trying to weave out of the argument, and eventually ended up calling him names, telling him to grow up because he was just a pathetic child, and other crap unbecoming of an attorney. The kid completely won the argument by not only proving that gamers were not just idiotic 14-year-old kids, but also because Thompson resorted to mere name-calling when he couldn't win his argument.

What a fucking moron.

Depends on Performance

[debrain]

In general, this is a 'contract to the world', an offer of reward on completion. It's often called a "race across the desert", a unilateral contract with neither consideration nor quid pro quo. The first one who completes the contract gets the reward. If revoked prior to completion, you generally have no recourse. If that is not the case, there are two common ways to sue, or offer as a baseline for negotition, for failure to fulfill his end of the promise.

First, if you complete the contract first and give sufficient notification of such, and it is prior to his unilateral revocation, you can argue that he breached the contract. As the first person across the line, you are typically entitled to the reward. Breach of that may entitle you to estop the contract. In other words, entitlement to fulfillment of his promise.

Second, if you say that you relied on his contract and had sufficient reason to believe that the contract would be fulfilled (i.e. there is precedent for this type of contract, e.g. auctions for services to be rendered; or it would be unreasonable economic policy to not enforce payment because your reliance on his statement was reasonable and it would be poor form to permit his type of statement when it incurs your type of economically inefficient reliance), you might be able to sue for your costs, your lost opportunity, or his benefit.

Re:Minor Corrections.

[Iriel]

Oh I know, actually Gabe told Jack that $10,000 is pretty weak from a famous Miami lawyer when their charity has already raised half a million (in money, toys, etc.) in two years from the gamer community. That's what pissed off Jack. Then Jack accused their charity of being hollow because they're supposedly some flush-with-cash game company and that Jack's donations mean more in the ethical sense. When Gabe (Mike) emailed him back to clarify that they are not flush-with-cash at all, Jack called back and spent the entirety of the conversation screaming because Gabe asked him if Jack would have to sue himself for proposing such a horrifically malevolent game. Part of the way in the conversation, Jack hung up.

Check out the transcripts of emails between Jackie T. and Scott from VG Cats. It's even worse.

If this guy wants to play with fire, I suggest somebody put up a site to publish all of Jack's threats and verbal abuse (plus nonsense) and see if he gets institutionalized. I seriously think that man is pathologically violent.

Re:Contact him

[not_potable]

Wow. I actually just spoke with this man, at the number above. He asked me who I was, and I made the mistake of saying that I wanted to ask him some questions about his proposal to the (oops) "internet community". He then started raising his voice, saying that he made this proposal to the "gaming industry", not a bunch of modders working out of their basement. I couldn't get a word in edgewise. He told me to get a dictionary, and hung up. Ever the cool-headed one, he.

Email Transcript

[MoonBuggy]

Here's the brief email conversation I just had with him. My messages were short, and I fully admit they could have been more crafted or articulate, but I asked what I wanted to ask to satisfy my own curiosity while remaining polite. I tried to put forward direct questions in the hope of direct answers. It appears I will not be having any further contact with him:

Mr. Thompson,
I have a single, simple question to ask, and I would appreciate if you would take the time to answer; how do you justify your position of moral superiority in the debate on violence in computer games when you bear in mind that Penny Arcade, some of the most vocal proponents of the industry you are against, paid the promised $10,000 to charity in your name when you refused to do so?

Yours, Greg Tebbutt

The answer is a) I never refused to do so, b) I haven't heard from Paul Eibeler to what charity he wants me to send the money, and c) the terms of the proposal have not been met. I never said I was kidding about the offer.
They made that up.

The item at Penny Arcade about this is false and defamatory and it is actionable. I told them to take it down or else.

You got any more stupid questions?

Thank you for your quick reply. Although this may be considered a "stupid question", I would like to clarify the point: will you outline where the modification at http://hellfish.gtajunkies.com/Jt.html falls short of your expectations, and commit to donate the money when the shortfalls are altered? If you are not willing to do so, would you please explain your reasons?

Greg Tebbutt

I did. No te I have have not heard from Mr. Eibeler. That makes two sets of stupid questions. In this game, two strikes and you're out. Don't bother me further

I do not intend to 'bother you' with this reply, and as you evidently do not wish to debate I will not continue this conversation further, however for the sake of completeness it would be helpful if you could direct me to where I can find the correct version of the comments that I appear to have missed on the subject of the 'hellfish' GTA modification. I ask in order that there is a fair representation of your feelings on the issue if I post a transcript of this conversation online.

I told you not to bother me again. you're obviously impaired

Bold and italics mine, used for clarifying who said what.

I'm honestly not sure if he means that he did commit to donate the money, or that he did give reasons why he won't. I'm also not clear on why he says that he hasn't been contacted WRT which charity to pay, then says that the terms of the proposal weren't met (and therefore implies he won't pay until they have been).