Twitch Re-Suspends Alleged Domestic Abuser After Fan Outcry

Image: MrDeadMoth

Last month, Twitch streamer Luke “MrDeadMoth” Munday was arrested by Australian authorities after a Fortnite stream during which he seemed to be hitting his partner. Twitch suspended his account shortly after. At the start of this week, however, Twitch viewers were surprised to find that Munday’s channel was already back. His suspension, which some presumed would be permanent, had lasted just 14 days.

After being apprehended on December 9, Munday was charged with common assault. He was then given a four-week court date adjournment to seek legal advice. On December 30, Munday apparently decided to use some of that time to resume his streaming career, announcing a return stream with the words “let’s be positive.” Streamers and viewers were anything but as they recalled the December stream during which Munday, who appeared enraged after his partner demanded he stop playing Fortnite and threw cardboard at him, then walked off-screen and, after what sounded like a slap, viewers then heard sobs in response.

“The man who beat his wife on stream (MrDeadMoth) is currently live streaming from your platform,” said Hazz, a member of popular gaming organisation Faze clan, on Twitter. “How have you allowed this to happen bruh @Twitch? 30 day ban for saying prohibited WORDS on stream. 14 day ban for literally BEATING your wife on stream.”

Throughout the week, other streamers pointed to similar inconsistencies and contradictions in Twitch’s rules, as well as the rules’ general opaqueness.

“Reports about men repeatedly harassing women/Llgbtqa+ on Twitch, esp partners: silence,” wrote streamer Austen Marie. “Oh but they let the wife beater back on!”

“What’s there even to say about this MrDeadMoth guy?” said popular streamer Ellohime. “Dude abused his wife in front of his kids live on stream and is back streaming, but what do I say? Don’t abuse your wife? Don’t let him back? How is this not the MOST common of sense? What am I even typing? This is so absurd.”

“It’s so great as a survivor of domestic abuse & content creator to see a streamer that beat the shit out of his wife while streaming still alive and well on Twitch with 7000+ follows & affiliation,” said streamer Saucy837, who moved from Twitch to Mixer. “Way to send the right message.”

On top of all that, Munday’s return to Twitch netted him a healthy viewer boost, with some presumably there to gawk and others even expressing sympathy. All of the new viewers helped line his pockets, as well as Twitch’s.

Some have argued, throughout the week, that Munday’s partner instigated the physical violence by throwing a piece of cardboard, but others have pointed out that hitting somebody in reaction to that is a seriously questionable escalation. Furthermore, Twitch’s rules state that acts and threats of violence are “considered zero-tolerance violations and all accounts associated with such activities will be indefinitely suspended.” This situation should fall under that category, yet Munday didn’t get banned.

Perma-bans on Twitch are rare, even in the case of egregious public offenses. The platform uses a strike system in metering out suspensions and bans, with first-time offenses typically only netting week-long suspensions and subsequent screw-ups leading to additional weeks, up to one month. The rules are frustratingly vague and inconsistent when it comes to specific punishments for specific crimes, however, with Twitch moderators seeming to make those calls on a case-by-case basis behind the scenes.

For most of this week, Twitch maintained radio silence on Munday’s return, which seemed to infuriate users further. Then, earlier today, Munday’s channel suddenly blipped out of digital existence again. If you try to access it now, you’ll be met with Twitch’s usual error message: “Sorry. Unless you’ve got a time machine, that content is unavailable.”

Neither Twitch nor Munday have stated whether he has been permanently banned or if this is just another temporary suspension. Twitch has a policy against discussing the particulars of these things, and Munday has yet to speak publicly since his channel got put in time-out, nor has he replied to an inquiry from Kotaku. A Twitch spokesperson offered the following statement with regard to the sudden re-suspension of Munday’s channel:

“Protecting the integrity of our community is incredibly important to us,” they told Kotaku. “We want everyone on Twitch to have a safe and positive experience and work constantly toward that goal. Part of that work includes examining our policies and practices when we find they don’t properly address specific incidents to ensure we’re adapting as the Twitch community grows.”

Better late than never, but still late. Some fans have taken this decision, belated though it may be, as a sign that Twitch does listen to its audience after all—but also that Twitch’s internal decision-making is unreliable, to say the least.

“This is why you gotta give ‘em shit on social media,” said streamer BlackLightAttack. “Don’t go harassing individual employees, mind you, voicing discontent is enough. Just stay alert for the next mistake, as they do not seem to have the infrastructure to avoid them on their own.”


Comments

    this is... well maybe he should have been perma banned from the start. the issue is that if they have a strike policy and he did nothing to earn another strike and got banned, it means twitch may ban anyone with a hate mob after them even if they haven't done anything 'wrong'(against twitch rules or the law).

    I don't really care about him personally but, unless twitch clarifies this, the message is that if a streamer pisses people off, they can be banned without having comitted a violation.

    Now if they had commented that on further review of the situation they felt a longer or perma ban was necessary I'd have no issues as it is from seeing this article...

      I don't think the guy should be permanently banned - yet. Here we have trial by social media again. No innocent until proven guilty, just public outrage demanding blood.

      The guy has a court date set. What should have happened is he was given a temp ban until the case is heard and a decision is made. If he's found guilty then that's the perfect time for twitch to permanently ban him. On the other hand, if he's found not guilty then they should probably reinstate his account.

        Agreed, unfortunately trial by social media is the modern day lynch mob mentality.

        While I dont condone the actions of what he did I feel like regardless of the outcome he wont be on twitch again or probably stream anymore because social media will lose its mind.

        There's a difference between broadcast standards and criminal standards.

        Twitch wouldn't need a criminal conviction in order to ban him, if people have made a complaint that Twitch can verify then they could ban him for breaching community rules not criminal laws.

          Well my point is mostly he was banned once and now again without having done anything additionally wrong other than provoking public outcry for daring to show up again. if twitch had re-evaluated things and told us it was that reason, there wouldn't be a problem. as it is I can only conclude they gave into public pressure against their own standards, which sets a precident that doesn't bode well for other others who have the misfortune to fall foul of a crowd without having violated terms of service.

            Twitch doesn't have standards, they're inconsistent as fuck when it comes to punishments. People in the past have gotten longer bans than the two-week one this guy initially got just for flashing too much non-nude cleavage, which any reasonable observer should conclude is a much less deserving act than domestic violence.

            The precedent being set here is a good one - if Twitch refuses to communicate (and they do, for reasons beyond me) and the punishment they've applied to an infraction is wildly disproportionate to what they apply to everything else, public pressure is the only way for the public to communicate that that disconnect is not reasonable, and Twitch listening to that feedback and (ideally) adjusting its notion of what punishment that infraction should attract is ideal.

            At the end of the day, fair punishment is a social construct, not just a legislative and judicial one. Our body of laws and the upper and lower bounds of punishment for breaking those laws are largely driven by the expectation society holds. There's some lag, as things like the Australian same-sex marriage law or marijuana legalisation go, but it still comes down to public expectation to guide the standard of reasonable punishment. The mechanism people used to convince Twitch to change its decision here is the same mechanism people used to convince the government to change SSM law, or any other.

          I don't really care about the "twitch community". So many online communities are toxic and witch hunt before the truth is known that I don't think it's fair to bow to their every whim.

          I just think it would be more appropriate to actually wait until there is better information about what happened. Information that *should* come out in court. And to be clear I have no problems with temp banning him until the court date and ultimately permanently banning him if the information that comes out is negative (which seems likely).

          Pretty disappointed that so many people (including the downvoters) don't seem to appreciate the idea of due process.

            'Due process' simply means that decisions are taken fairly, consistently, and with the individual involved having a right of reply to ensure that their side of the story is adequately considered in any final determination.

            In this case, the relevant rules are Twitch's policies and procedures, not the Australian legal system's. Most particularly, Twitch's policy that acts and threats of violence are “considered zero-tolerance violations and all accounts associated with such activities will be indefinitely suspended.”

            If Twitch's standard was that criminal charges needed to be proven in a court of law before permanent action is taken then virtually nobody on Twitch would get banned, ever.

              While I agree with you in principle twitch is extremely inconsistent in the actions they take. If they were more consistent then I'd agree with you (and their actions) 100%.

        Again, I usually hate this trial by social media when there's an allegation of misconduct. But this is more than an allegation - it was livestreamed.

        You can argue about context etc as much as you like, and it's entirely possible (maybe even probable) that his partner was antagonising him and that they're just as bad as each other. But that doesn't excuse his actions in this situation - it's not okay to assault someone because they're annoying you (regardless of gender or relation).

        As for 'oh but you don't see it' - it's a reasonable inference based on what we do see (him advancing towards his partner) and hear (something being hit and his partner crying) that he did something aggressive to upset her.

        Seriously there are much better hills to die on than this one, like pretty much any other unsubstantiated allegation from 2018 where sites like Kotaku US demanded blood. This guy doesn't deserve much defence.

          You're missing the point, it's still an inference. There is a slapping sound, but we don't see the action. Maybe he struck her, maybe he slapped a counter, maybe he slapped his leg, maybe she slapped him. Let the court decide once it hears the testimony from the people involved, let them make a decision and follow that.

          *EVERYONE* deserves a defence. It's a long established rule of law. Right along with everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm sick of witch hunts from social media. Maybe if nothing was being done then it'd be fair enough, but the guy has been charged and is awaiting a court date. And that's not even very far away, so people should pull their heads in and wait to see what the result is.

            Creating the impression that you will act out violence on another is still a form of domestic violence. Violence and coercion go beyond physically striking someone. We should be at least be capable of engaging the subject's language and concepts if we're going to dip our toes into a discussion.

            Considering how large and endemic domestic violence is in Australia, we have a great responsibility to be up-to-date on the subject; especially as we are part of a traditionally male-dominated hobby.

            So, please read up about the subject; the Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria and White Ribbon would be a good start. Maybe even give the AIHW's Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018 report a hearty look-in.

            tl;dr go learn what domestic and family violence encompasses.

            I'm not missing the point. You seem to suggest that something other than an aggressive act occurred - which is unlikely on the balance of probabilities given his partner's reaction and what we hear. It really doesn't matter, because it's a private site that can ban you without rhyme or reason if it so chooses. This isn't a court of law, the decision to ban someone from a private site doesn't hinge on a court decision. He has the opportunity to defend himself - which he will do in court. If it turns out that the court finds nothing happened, then Twitch might lift the ban... or they might not.

            This is vastly different from the other absurd screeds that Kotaku US and similar sites have posted over 2018 over mere allegations, with zero circumstantial evidence besides allegations that nobody can verify. What he livestreamed is reason enough to suspect that he did some act to provoke fear in his partner. That's sufficient for Twitch to ban him. Twitch doesn't have unban him or let him in any way utilise their services simply because he hasn't been found guilty in court. That's not how private companies and their terms of service work.

            God dude seriously, this guy is shit. I'm one of the first to call Kotaku out on rabble rousing in an attempt to claim the moral high ground and indulge in character assassination without cause. But this isn't a case of that.

              I'm sorry but you have missed the point. Just to be clear I'll spell it out.

              1. We actually don't know if this was some sort of weird publicity stunt that the pair of them cooked up. It's extremely unlikely but it's possible.

              2. As has been pointed out she was harassing him as well prior to his actions. So while he's not completely innocent there was provocation. We also don't know the extent of their dissension. Is this the only instance or is there a history?

              3. We still do not know exactly what happened offscreen. Everyone makes the assumption that he slapped her, and yes I think that's probably what happened too. But that may not actually be what happened. I want to hear her side of it too.

              4. Finally, I'm not defending him. I'm defending *everyone*. Personally I think he probably deserves the ban. But as I keep stating everyone deserves the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We regularly see witch hunts in the media and often the people don't deserve it. Maybe in this case he does, but it's not your job, or mine to pursue this guy. Especially since he is scheduled to go to court.

                1. They cooked up a publicity stunt that immediately paints him as a violent person and got him banned? What the fuck?

                2. It's irrelevant, it doesn't excuse violence. If she was trying to physically harm him then you might have an argument, but what she does is mere annoyance.

                3. Again it's irrelevant for the purposes of the ban. We can infer enough that he did something to her to incite that response. You're right that she might be a total piece of shit too. That doesn't mean anything for his ban.

                4. I'm not pursuing him. I'm not declaring him guilty of an offence. The court will do that and do operate on a presumption of innocence. Absolutely none of that has anything to do with third party sites banning him on suspicion of misconduct. You don't have to like it, but that's the facts of the case. If Twitch wants to ban him for whatever reason, they can. Theres enough evidence to suggest he did something questionable. This is totally different from the usual Buzzfeed hitpiece based on flimsy allegation of misconduct with no credible proof.

                  I did say "weird publicity stunt". There have been lots of them over the years where a normal person asks (as you did) WTF were they thinking.

                  It's not irrelevant as you don't know what level of violence or verbal abuse there's been in the past (from both sides).

                  It's not irrelevant for the purposes of the ban. If he walked off to confront her and she *slapped him* then he didn't actually assault her. I'll say this again for clarity, I don't think that's what happened, I do think he slapped her. BUT we should be getting her take on the story to confirm it.

                  Anyone who screams at Twitch to ban the guy is pursuing him.

        since when has the status of your twitch account have anything to do with your domestic violence conviction??? we going to start doing criminal background checks on every streamer then punishing them. how long for a DUI?? what about shoplifting??

        either his actions warrant a permanent ban or they don't he just gets a strike, there are people on twitch that have been banned loads of times for petty shit. they get a ban and the ban is the punishment and no matter how many times they keep doing this stuff they will only ever get a suspension. more serious offences get u permabanned outright maybe this should be one of them but at the moment it isnt so he gets a strike. the mob shouldn't get to have him banned especially considering most of them probably didnt even watch the video of what happened they just want to virtue signal about the bad man on twitch look how woke we are. but also twitch streaming is not one of the sentencing options open to the Australian legal system stop trying to add punishments on top.

        dirty authoritarians

          maybe this should be one of them but at the moment it isnt so he gets a strike

          It is, though. From Twitch's rules:

          Acts and threats of violence will be taken seriously and are considered zero-tolerance violations and all accounts associated with such activities will be indefinitely suspended.

            do u know is that from before he was suspended or after he was suspended?

            indefinitely suspended sounds a lot like banned but it isn't is there more to it like pending review etc i don't mean to sound like i don't trust you but i have learned that especially on the internet people tend to only use half the story in an effort to win arguments.

            also in case it's not clear or you didn't see my other posts i'm all for permanent banning of his account they should change that language from indefinitely suspended to permanently banned. But i'm going to hazard a guess that they chose that language to give themselves wiggle room, the decision they came to was a 2 week suspension which could be for any number of reasons.

            I think indefinitely suspended may refer to the immediate action they take ie we suspended immediately and indefinitely until we render a judgement. meaning they can yeet his stream right away and they don't have a time frame set up for how long they have to make the judgement. Indefinitely doesn't actually mean what you think it means that is to say indefinitely doesn't mean permanently just means they don't have and end point, hell in the hypothetical above they don't ever have to pass judgement they can just leave it in limbo for eternity. they probably wish they had at this point.

              It's a long-standing policy, it hasn't been recently changed. 'Indefinitely suspended' means whatever they want it to, they don't define it further and the only other point of comparison is the term 'permanent suspension' mentioned for repeat copyright infringement offences. They don't use 'ban' with respect to account at all, only 'suspension'.

              You're right that they've phrased it to effectively mean nothing, but that's somewhat the point I was making earlier - Twitch is absolute trash at being consistent with enforcing their own rules, and why people have to shout at them to get them to fix it when they treat offences wildly off the mark.

              How they've worded it is one side of it, what people expect is the other. I think it's safe to say most people expect that for their violence clause, 'indefinitely' should mean 'permanently'. And until they fuck off with their vague terms and put forward a clear, consistent set of punishments, they'll keep getting bad publicity for making stupid decisions like 'give the guy who beat his wife on stream a two-week suspension'.

                I think indefinite should not necessarily equal permanent. Especially in a case like this. What happens if the guy gets counselling and does community service and makes amends? Even the criminal court allows the possibility of people to returning to society once they've served their punishment and been rehabilitated. Surely other institutions should afford the same privilege?

                Assuming he is guilty and the case proceeds as I expect then sure ban him. But give him the chance to return at some point in the future. Especially if it's to talk about his behaviour and what he's done to change it.

                  A fair point. I've always advocated for reform and to not permanently judge people's lives, just their actions. Perhaps rather than permanent, it would be better for me to say that I'd want to see a one-year ban at minimum. Even then, I admit I'd probably still get a bad taste in my mouth seeing him come back in a year's time. It's a difficult one I guess, DV is a very important issue for me. I've seen too many people I care for have their lives destroyed because of how prevalent it is and how poorly we support the victims.

                  @ZombieJesus: Yeah I can understand that. A girl I knew had her cheek fractured by her boyfriend. She immediately dumped him which was good. She didn't raise charges with the police though so he effectively got away with it.

                  I think each case needs to be viewed on merit though. If MrDeadMoth came back to twitch with no sense of remorse or effort to atone then I'd much rather not see him come back. But I think if he genuinely came back at some point trying to educate people about why DV is so bad and attempting to make amends then that's valuable. People can see that it doesn't have to happen and that you can turn you bad behaviour around and become a good person.

                Twitch isn't ever going to make it's punishment process or criteria public let alone consistent they don't want to because then they run the risk of having to can really big streamers for some technical breach of their TOS. for example one of their female streamers in my opinion anyway playfully slapped her spouse on the arm after he made some remarks that called for a bit of a slap. Now i say this is DV because of the context but other shitheads have reported the incident and think it is somehow similar to this one... essentially idiots made stupid comparison but it does fit the TOS because the TOS doesn't say anything about context actually it specifically says no tolerance which makes me think context would be irrelevant.

                as to the idea that he should get more than 2 weeks suspension i think the same and just in case your interested i think he should have been given 3 months or until he can provide evidence of counselling sufficient to twitch we can all see this guy needs some help. However everybody complaining about this are being ridiculous it is not up to you or anyone how long he does get banned for it's up to twitch, if he goes to court and gets 2 weeks in jail are you going to kidnap him and make him serve out a year in your basement because the legal system didn't punish him enough for you.

                Twitch should have told everyone complaining to sod off if you don't like it don't watch him if your still not satisfied don't watch twitch at all but instead they capitulated well you have set a standard now. This is not a good idea fellas your not the only vocal minority on the internet what happens when the incels start going after women for no other reason than they are women, or the actual alt right goes after some black streamer, we have a TOS with no context and a company that will bow down to a loud mob you are creating problems for innocent people down the line and you will feel righteous doing it because the mean wife slapper got more time on his sentence, well good fucking job everyone i will be back to say i told you so when we have an article where this has all gone very wrong.

            From your clip of Twitch's rules, is seems that their argument on screen is enough for their account to be suspended.

            The two of them yelling and throwing things at each other should be enough for the ban.

    Should Twitch have a zero tolerance policy regarding violence such as this - yes.

    Should you hit a person of they piss you off - no but...
    Should you throw something at a person because they also piss you off - no.

    What he done was wrong but what she had done was also questionable.

    He escalated the violence but did not instigate it. Doesn't make it right though and men have had it drummed into their head that you don't hit a woman.

    The issue (apart from the Twitch ban) is that this case isn't a violence against women problem per se but rather how toxic both sexes can be in a relationship. I would be surprised if the pattern of actions is an isolated incident.

      Correct me if I'm wrong but there is *no* actual vision of him striking his wife. It's supposition based on audio and context. I don't support domestic violence but it is at least conceivable that he didn't actually hit his wife. It's time people let the court figure it out and stop making assumptions.

        So if he didnt hit her than it's not abuse? Get real, the amount of apologist nonsense about this story has been so disheartening. If you can watch that video and seriously say with a straight face that that person should still be making money livestreaming (whether convicted of a crime or not) than I seriously question your judgment.

          You think he upcoming court case and lack of denial might be contributing factors of evidence here?

          I'm not saying it's not abuse to yell at someone. But to be fair she was yelling at him. So is that not her abusing him? You do realise domestic abuse can go both ways. Consider it this way, if you were at your place of employment and your wife came in and started yelling at you in front of clients how would you feel and react?

          As for yelling at your partner (male or female) I think there is a fine line between arguing and abuse. Pretty much everyone gets angry and yells at their partner at times during their relationship. I think you can't claim it's abuse unless there is an established pattern or it crosses an invisible, unknowable line. A line which varies from person to person. It's part of the reason why it's so hard to determine or act upon.

          I don't generally agree with the tit for tat metaphor because it just results in escalation. And that may have actually been the problem here.

            yes they both have issues but you should be careful if you say that, i have been saying that since this first happened but everyone is just going to make a strawman out of you saying you support DV and you think it's fine to hit a women as long as she started it blah blah blah

            good luck mate being intelligent enough to analyse the situation beyond your knee-jerk disgust gets you into trouble every time.

        Not supposition, inference. There is evidence, it's just circumstantial rather than direct, but circumstantial doesn't mean weak. The phrase 'smoking gun', often used to refer to the conclusive evidence that proves guilt, is itself circumstantial evidence - you didn't see the bullet leave the gun and strike the victim, but you did see the shooter holding a smoking gun pointed at the victim a second later.

        The content of that video doesn't have to directly show him striking his wife, it only needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he struck her. The sequence of him standing, advancing towards his wife, leaving the camera frame and a second later the sound of a loud slap and her immediately wailing only has a limited number of reasonable interpretations. Conceivable isn't the burden: him slapping his own face may be a conceivable explanation, but it's not a reasonable one based on the surrounding evidence.

          I don't disagree with you. I think he probably did slap his wife. I just think we should let it be heard in court and abide by the decision there. It's their job to get information and testimony and sort through it. Far more information than we will have access to as casual internet readers.

            Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting everyone should judge the story. If you don't feel like there's enough evidence to make a decision, I respect the choice to wait and I'd be doing the same. It's just that for this case, the content of the video satisfies my burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. To be frank, even if the court rendered a not guilty verdict, I'd still be satisfied that he did something wrong by my own ethical standards, even if it didn't rise to the level of criminal guilt.

      This case is 100% about violence against women, and people like yourself who will make comments like this that will seek to justify or diminish the offending are why it keeps happening.

      There is not enlightened center position here, his struck his wife, no justification, no self defence, just plain abuse.

      They were both abusive in the video, from a legal standpoint. That's not to say their respective abuses were equivalent, I think what he did was absolutely worse. Whether her throwing things rose to a level worthy of pressing charges, the attending police ended up making that decision.

      Of course, from a Twitch standpoint she's a non-entity. It wasn't her stream, it was his. Twitch can only act against one side of the equation, but that doesn't mean he's being treated unfairly by Twitch, as some people I've seen (not you) have tried to argue.

        he was suspended a second time for nothing other than some people who are not even his viewers complaining that he wasn't punished harshly enough. Either you ban him permanently or you don't based on your TOS right, so the determination was a 2 week suspension that he served now he should have his account back.

        instead they capitulated to an angry mob and banned him again the reason this must be pushed back against is that it sets a precedent for this outrage mob and others like it that they can get people banned if they just make enough noise you do not want to teach them that because it WILL BE misused to get people banned for a myriad of reasons having nothing to do with TOS violations which is exactly what happened to him. this second suspension has nothing to do with any breach of TOS he literally did nothing wrong. i realise there is going to be a bunch or stupid responses saying "he hit her" your a misogynist blah blah blah.... not true he served the punishment for that.

        on the flip side the "outrage mob" for lack of a better term absolutely can advocate that the TOS be changed so that any "serious" domestic abuse be grounds for permaban, that is fine i would even agree with that but you then got to word it right or you will have trolls reporting some chick for playfully slapping her boyfriend on the arm.

        oh also no twitch shouldn't be allowed to change the TOS to permaban then retroactively ban him because they have all ready changed the TOS before and not retroactively punished people.

          From past writing experience, the more neutral term for what you're calling an 'outrage mob' is simply 'public response'. Public response to Mundy's short suspension has been strong and broadly in favour of a longer (if not permanent) suspension.

          Pressuring a decision-maker to review a bad decision isn't a bad thing, nor is a decision-maker reassessing and potentially revising their decision. Decisions aren't set in stone and if we can't tell someone we have a problem with a decision they've made, what other recourse is there?

          The public appealed against Twitch's initial punishment, and it was extended. Even court sentences can be increased on appeal, I don't see why this should be an exception to the norm.

            Public response implies majority. We can only be sure that the people who are outraged .. are the people who are outraged.

            All too often in this, the vocal minority are able to be portrayed as the public majority by virtue of that being the type of slant that gets views on news / opinion sites.

            I'm sure there would be many who would be uneasy with banning someone / repressing their income (and thus, their capacity to defend themselves in a court of law) without 100% incontrovertible evidence.

            It certainly is not without precedent in sporting organisations for people to be banned from playing, prior to a court case, only to be proven innocent. I would presume that the first ban was predicated on that logic.

              You assume that the people outraged over this are a "vocal minority" instead of a majority (as seems apparent). How do you support this claim?

                I do not.

                I point out that we don't know what the majority think because only a minority of people speak out about it. That minority of people is blown up into an implication that the majority agree with it. The people who are outraged always gain the traction because they have the juicy opinion that can be clickbaited.

                  But this isn't a democratic process, and 'public response' implies no such thing. An organisation doesn't run an election to determine the best outcome here, or even hold an opinion poll. It's completely irrelevant whether the 'outrage mob' is a majority or a minority, what's relevant is that a group of individuals bought to Twitch's attention inconsistencies in the application of Twitch's own policies and, upon reflection, Twitch agreed with that position and revised an earlier decision they had made.

              This article is a good representation of how media manipulates a narrative using "creative" imagery and wording.

              https://www.boredpanda.com/examples-media-truth-manipulation/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

              It's interesting that there are claims of widespread outrage, huge riots, massive crowds and carefully staged photos support it. But a wider view proves them to be a lie. This situation may be no different. It's impossible to know just how many people either outright support the guy or just don't give a damn either way. Largely because we just don't hear the dissenting opinion or it's getting shouted down.

              'Public response' by its nature describes people who respond publicly. If someone hasn't expressed an opinion, they're not part of the public response. Also, it doesn't imply either, it's entirely down to how you phrase the rest of the sentence (eg. 'public response is mixed', 'public response is in favour of/against the short ban'). The phrasing I chose reflects my own observation, yours may be different.

              I think the ban should have remained in place until the resolution of the court case at the very least, though I'm in favour of a permanent ban.

                thanks for the public response term zombie, i did think he should have been permanently banned as well but i changed my position to "3 months or provide evidence of counselling" i said this up above earlier but forgot to mention i think it should be ongoing counselling not he look i saw someone give me back my account.

                @angorafish you have a habit of reading shit and just interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean, nobody highlight any inconsistencies we have a bunch of people who are not satisfied with his punishment but a 2 week suspension isn't inconsistent nobody has any idea what the punishments for any given TOS breach is meant to be. I think it's deliberately designed that way for cynical capitalist reasons but the why isn't really relevant, this all comes down to some people majority or minority doesn't much matter setting a dangerous precedent that as long as you can be loud enough and annoying enough you can get twitch to ban somebody. this won't always be used on deserving targets like this wife beater keep that in mind.

            I don't disagree with this line of thought either. There are some woefully inadequate sentences handed down by courts, let alone social media companies. However, I think Twitch is still in the wrong for this. The simplest most palatable option for *everyone* involved would be to announce something like "His account is suspended pending the result of the court case".

            It means he's not technically banned but he's not on twitch. It leaves the door open for him to return if things go favourably (for him) or for Twitch to permanently ban him if they don't.

              I noted something similar above: suspension pending the result of the case would be the bare minimum, but I'm still in favour of a permanent ban based on what I saw. Even if what happened doesn't rise to a criminal conviction, it's still completely inappropriate for a streaming platform.

                Yeah that's also true. My main point is that more information will come out during the court case and that information could be valuable in making a determination. If he's found guilty absolutely ban him. If he's not found guity then take a look at the extra information and make a decision based on it. If there is nothing more than the video I'd probably still ban him too.

                However, maybe there is some information counter to the public narrative that mitigates his actions. In which case lift the suspension.

                  I swear there are people downvoting who don't actually read what's being said. They just kneejerk downvote because you don't automatically agree with them.

                  That's not aimed at you ZJ.

                  Last edited 07/01/19 1:57 pm

          You may interpret it as "capitulated to an angry mob" but it could perfectly be "were made to realise that they made a mistake and corrected it". As Zombie Jesus has mentioned a few times, 14 days are the default temp ban for really minor offenses. As another used proposed, the ban should have been at the very least indefinite until a verdict of the legal case against him was produced. Twitch dropped the ball, got understandable negative feedback and finally, course-corrected.

            It is a capitulation.

            He has not been proven guilty.

            He has been banned and denied his income stream because he is on trial.

            As I said in the other thread, many sporting organisations have fallen afoul of this and in recent years they have switched to punishing after the verdict.

            If anything, the revenue generated during the period between now and the case should be held in escrow.

              Most companies, organisations, sports teams, etc. suspend members who are charged with a criminal offence pending the outcome of the trial. Twitch doing the same isn't capitulation, it's holding them to the same standard everyone else follows.

                Yes but sportspeople still get paid and upon the outcome of the trial are able to be fined. As this is not possible in this case, the individual must work to be paid. Hey, if he wants to plead not guilty and work with escrowed money, that should be allowed. If he is found guilty, he is banned and all that money goes to a domestic violence charity. That is fair way to handle it - otherwise, people who are found not guilty are still punished for their crime.

                  For context, this wasn't his job or income stream. Before this story broke he only had about a hundred followers, enough to qualify for Twitch partnership but well below earning meaningful revenue. His day job was working as a technician for Telstra.

                  @ZombieJesus, I didn't realise he had so few followers either. I had the impression from previous articles that he had several thousand followers at least and was making money out of it.

                  additional punishments huh so DV conviction now has the addition of a fine paid to a DV charity

                  makes sense so the guy who got 6 months jail in darwin after raping a women can you tell me what additional punishments i can impose on him because i don't think his sentence was long enough... wait hes also not banned from starting a twitch stream better solve that first.

                  i realise this guy didn't rape on stream so i'm being unfair... wait no i'm not because you all seem to think he should be banned on the outcome of the court case, are you going to let the judge know that so he can take into account the public imposed punishment when handing down his own sentence.

                  good name you have you really do act like a lord
                  lord of all that is good and righteous

                  wouldn't want to punish someone who is found innocent better get him to work for nothing for months waiting for the court case, i think he also works for Telstra we need to let them know they have to hold his pay. Why just this guy tho i mean there are thousands of people awaiting court dates that have jobs all over Australia right now... we have so many calls to make.

                  whos with me yeh lets get em!!
                  or is it only domestic violence charges we go for sadly thats probably a couple hundred still i dont think i can make all these calls by myself

                  @skrybe He picked up a surge into the low thousands after the story was publicised but before he was suspended, and gained some more during his brief un-suspension. But social monitoring services had him only around 100 before any of it happened.

                We might have gone too deep in back and forth. I can't seem to reply to your context reply. Thanks for that correction, my mistake - if it his not his income stream twitch don't have a duty of care and suspension seems fine.

                  Yeah, there's a depth limit. If you hit it, best thing is either reply to a shallower one of my posts, or reply to whatever the last depth one was and tag me by typing @zombiejesus. Those two ways I get notified at least that you replied.

      The fact people keep bringing up what she did before hand in some vain attempt to defend his actions is morally questionable.

      It's the equivalent of a toddler saying " BUT SHE HIT ME FIRST!"

      wether you are doing it intentionally or not, comments like yours are an attempt to downplay what he did.

        I see what you are saying and I'd be disappointed if people were trying to downplay his actions but I feel like it is more they just don't think she should be without blame in causing the situation. It sets a bad precedent if women are seen to be able to push someone to the point of violence and then get to play the victim just because they are women.

        Either way I'll reserve my judgement on this particular case for after it has been before the Court.

          I agree, because there's also an inference made from the video that her behaviour is pretty questionable too (plus the moral brigading on mainstream media of "but what about the kids?!"). But it's irrelevant to Twitch and mere provocation isn't grounds for responding with violence.

          I have no doubt they're both immature and in a toxic relationship, and that they're both participating in what would amount to domestic violence. I have no doubt she antagonised him and he responded as a result. But that doesn't excuse what he did which seems excessive. Also, from experience attending DV jobs, it isn't automatically assumed the man is at fault - I attended one recently where a couple was arguing, and the woman pulled a knife on her husband, who then slapped her when she advanced. She's getting served with the notice, not him, because she was clearly more aggressive.

            i want to know why you think context is irrelevant to twitch i would have thought having the whole thing on video and therfore not predicated on he said she said would make the inclusion of context even more relevant.

            also good to hear that the lady with the knife is getting the notice but your anecdotal story doesn't mean that much with regards to the arguments people actually make when they say DV policy is bias against men. In Victoria at least i know the policy is that on all DV calls to the police the male is automatically removed from the residence unless he owns it outright. and this is the standard policy it doesn't matter who makes the call or what happened the default is to remove the male. so the argument is that this policy is discriminatory regardless of what actually happens on any single call out. just so you know the actual argument people are making isn't about men being assumed "at fault" it's about the policies being discriminatory. I don't have an answer for this i mean it is 100% discriminatory but that doesn't automatically make it bad for all i know they found this policy to be the most effective at like not ending up being called back in 20 minutes when shit kicks off again.

            i agree completely with your description of these two people and their relationship but for some reason when i say it people accuse me of being an "apologist" or insinuate i'm a "misogynist" usually because they don't actually read the things i write. eyes glaze over and a small ideology demon whispers what they want to hear in their ear i guess i don't know.

              Dude we're not here to fix or discuss every DV case. We're looking at one specific incident.

              Twitch doesn't have to reinstate him because a court finds him not guilty. It's irrelevant. They can ban whoever they like. You can complain about it, you can dislike it, and you can campaign against it, but they don't need any reason other than "We said so." Yes sometimes they make shitty decisions but it's their prerogative.

                what the hell are you smoking...
                This whole discussion revolves around an angry mob yelling at twitch to "change" it's decision i'm pretty sure you are one of the people who said he should get more than 2 weeks. As for the discuss every DV case i didn't start that shit or the idea that his twitch account should be subject to the outcome of his legal case i am responding to other peoples posts why are you trying to pin all this shit on me.

                Where was the They can ban whoever they like. You can complain about it, you can dislike it, and you can campaign against it, but they don't need any reason other than "We said so." when everyone else was bitching that 2 weeks wasn't good enough do better twitch... looks to me like this only applies after the opposite has achieved a punishment your satisfied with.

                I have completely given up on the idea that the vigilante mob would do as I quoted above so given they have no self control and are going to yell at twitch anyway i thought maybe they could try for something actually helpful next time instead of just unfairly nailing one guy so they can feel good about themselves "helping victims of DV".

          Nobody in a relationship should be justified as "pushed to the point of violence" (barring extreme cases, where one's life or health is at risk).

          A responsible, decent adult, when pushed in this way, just gets up and walks away. Hell, this guy had it better than most: if he needed proof for divorce proceedings or child custody, he had actual footage to support his claims. Instead, he escalated.

            I actually agree with what you're saying. The only thing I'll point out is that the people involved are actually pretty young. And sadly a lot of young people make a lot of stupid decisions.

            It's possible that without social media publicising this they'd have had a chance to become more mature and learned to behave better and grow into more reasonable, adult relationship. But they probably won't get a chance because it's blown up and become super visible.

            Of course, it's also possible things would have escalated even further into more serous abuse and violence. So it's likely better that it's come out now and it can be nipped in the bud.

              That is fair, they are indeed young.

              One of the reasons I dislike the whole "condemnation of outrage" nowadays is that the alternative is what we've had for way too long: People looking away, shushing anything that made them uncomfortable or rocked the boat, or just shrugging appalling stuff as "unfortunate, but there's nothing we can do, that's how it is".

              Outrage, as overreacting as it can be sometimes (I trust that with time we'll learn to be more measured), at least stops perpetrators getting away with stuff. Are the consequences they experience as a result "too much"? I really can't tell one way or the other; what I can tell you is that I like the message that it is sending to would-be perpetrators.

                i don't remember anyone saying anything like what you said in paragraph 1 friend.

                the problem is we have a legal system that deals with the DV charges right and some people are not satisfied that justice will be served, so we have people going out of there way to punish this guy right now using twitch a vehicle for his income. Think hard about how DV is viewed in our society this guy has been outed publicly and anyone watching mainstream media only saw the edited footage so it looks even worse, do we know if he can even leave his house right now without risking being assaulted. meanwhile there are people who want him to be punished even more harshly by twitch because twitch "didn't do good enough in my opinion" it is not ok to have the public deciding how and why and when to punish someone for DV we have a fucking legal system for a reason and it's about time people respected it.

                as for the message to would be perpetrators please Pylgrim we have had legal punishments for DV, shoplifting, DUI, murder etc the list goes on, clearly that isn't enough to stop people so the idea that if we just really fuck this one guy over hard it will make any kind of difference is disingenuous, your just trying to justify people "taking the law into their own hands" this is vigilantism and that is all it is.

                  I think my answer got lost in the aether, but here's the gist of it: If punishment exists yet the problem of domestic violence persists, there are only two logical explanations/alternatives:

                  - Punishment is entirely useless at addressing the issue and deterring would-be perpetrators and as such, might as well be removed entirely and we all will have to shrug helplessly as domestic violence keeps happening forever.

                  - Punishment is /insufficient/ to deter would-be perps and needs to be increased until a decrease in the issue is noticed.

                  Note that as a society, we have precedents for the second approach actually working, for example punishment associated with infringement of road rules and drunk driving.

                I get what you're saying and I agree it has it's place. I've seen a number of ridiculous sentences over the last few years for not just domestic violence but one punch attacks, drug fuelled attacks, home invasions and other crimes. In a few of these cases the public outcry has wound up increasing the sentence.

                But the big thing for me, is the outcry came *after* the initial case was heard, punishment decided and it was inadequate. I feel like we're getting to a point where we're putting the horse before the cart - crying for punishment before the case is decided.

        Provocation isn't a defence, but it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing if he's found guilty.

          Removed comment. Since the other comment was in moderation I just edited it for clarity.

          Last edited 06/01/19 3:22 pm

        The thing is the law actually stands with that view. Provocation is an actual defence. It's not a complete excuse but it is recognised and taken into account.

        I should point out that provocation in criminal law varies from state to state. As derrick points out it's not a defence *for murder* but it's a mitigating factor. It is however a defence in QLD for assault (which is what I was thinking).

        Last edited 06/01/19 3:23 pm

          The people commenting here and all over the internet though are not his defence lawyer.

          And i know exactly what a lot of them (not all) are trying to do. Because these types do it anytime there is a similar DV story like this. They attempt to muddy the waters.

          Anytime there is an article about a woman being killed by her partner its always "She provoked him!", "She shouldn't have taken the kids away from him!" trying to pin the blame on the woman for being killed/ Assaulted by their male partner.

          As far as im concerned, As soon as he decided to physically assault her, Anything she did beforehand is irrelevant. People learn not to resort to physical violence when they are children. Clearly this dude never left that stage

            As far as im concerned, As soon as he decided to physically assault her, Anything she did beforehand is irrelevant.

            Maybe in this case as he (apparently) escalated to violence. That statement isn't true for every case though.

            I'd actually like the "waters to be clearer" before making a judgment. Yes I think on the balance of probability he probably walked offscreen and slapped her. But on the tiny chance that he walked offscreen and she slapped him, I think it's worth waiting for her side to come out. Which is something I wondered about, has she remained silent through all this or is there an article with her side yet?

      Fair enough. We can also support a ban for his wife, should she someday decide to stream. Until then, mentioning it is irrelevant to the ongoing case.

    dont get me wrong, hes a real piece of work that totally deserves to be punished, but on the same token she is not an innocent victim either. I also agree with @derrick that provocation isn't a defense, however, and im not saying that it is, but her constantly poking and poking is no different to bullying.

    what he did is inexcusable, but at the same time, you cant bully someone and then play the victim card.

    the way i see it they are both idiots and deserve each other.

    When the arrest was the result of it being live streamed, and the prosecutors evidence in the case "is the Twitch Stream"... that should be a perma-ban on the spot!

    Guilty or mitigated circumstances, without a clean innocent slate, him returning to streaming means that any new subs, tips or ad revenue may be the result of his alleged assault, which is a bad message to be promoting. If cause and effect that infamous actions = increase revenue, that promotes issues in the community.

    this whole article and comment section is a total shitshow

      Yeah, but are you surprised? There's always an undercurrent of MRA-ish fanbois/douchebro apologists on alert, ready to dismiss the terrible behaviour of trash people like this irrelevant ginger streamer and/or try to justify their behaviour at a moment's notice. It's the same whenever there's an article on sexism, or women/LGBTQI players or developers, or the awful behaviour of some generic streamer bro-- a group of insecure haemorrhoids pop up to stink out the place, blame the victim and offer their warped, fringe opinions that the majority of readers neither asked for, nor want. It's par for the course.

      Last edited 07/01/19 9:15 pm

    Even if she started it that doesn't change whether or not he is guilty of an offense. What it does do is determine his out come of his punishment.
    That's how the law works.
    That's why he could get off lightly if she was shown to be the instigator. Or if it's determined it was all him, he will get a harsh punishment.
    But as far as mitigating circumstances go they don't change guilt or innocence. Only degree of guilt.

      100% correct buddy the issue here isn't meant to be about that it is about mob justice outside the legal system. Everyone here advocating for him to be perma banned will never admit it but they hate DV and they don't have faith in the legal system to appropriately punish him so they want to add shit on like banning him from twitch. We don't fire people from their jobs for being accused or even found guilty of DV even politicians would just be asked to resign.

      The idea that now his stream will change somehow, all his old fans who watching him for gaming content wont want to watch his gaming content anymore a huge proportion probably wont but its not like his suddenly going to attract what fans of domestic violence??
      hes going to somehow just by existing on the platform encourage young people to hit women?? they going to pick it up via osmosis? or are we meant to believe hes going to be holding DIY hit you wife classes i don't see it personally.

      Letting him back on the platform isn't my ideal solution just yet either i don't think 2 weeks was long enough unless he has set up some ongoing counselling to help him, but i don't think that he should be perma banned this "public response" has set a bad precedent and it will come back to bite some other innocent streamer in the ass. and you wont hear anything from the people who made this happen when that time comes.

    Does this rule apply to all crimes, or just to domestic violence?

    Or is there a selection of crimes that warrant perma-ban?

    If the case returns a not guilty verdict will he be reinstated?

    Does the crime have to occur on stream?

    So many questions.

      The answer to all of those questions is "Twitch will do whatever it wants, because it's a private site." That goes for any private site when deciding what violates its TOS.

        this entire discussion exists specifically because twitch didn't do what it wanted it bowed to an angry mob

    I don't know why any Twitch streamer gets put on a pedestal. They're just people on the Internet that can be anyone they want and have some sort of gimmick to get views. The real stuff happens off camera or on by mistake and this is a perfect example. The best Twitch streamers are the one's you don't hear about and are there to help and not make money from gimmicks

      are you suggesting he hit his wife so he could have a gimmick...

      if he did then he really fucked up

    The mob has spoken.

    I wonder how things will play out if he is found 'not guilty'?

    Of course, it could be rather ironic if the defense argues that he has received sufficient penalty by virtue of the Twitch ban, and the Court agrees.

      My opinion doesnt change if he is found not guilty, I dont think someone who cuts sick at his partner and distresses his child on screen, regardless of 'who started it' should be on twitch.

        what if he gets the help he clearly needs some counselling, not that your opinion should matter at all not that any of our opinions should matter to twitch but if he did that would you still say tuff shit no account?? what about reform and forgiveness? not for wife beaters tho right maybe give us a list of the crimes you personally find so abhorrent they should mean a permanent ban from twitch. mine is DUI coz a drunk ran over my uncle twice killing him so now we just need to find everyone on twitch with a DUI or DV conviction... oh wait that's right it only matters if he does it on stream.... hypocrite

        Half the streamers on twitch could be smacking around their spouses but as long as it doesnt happen on stream then they can keep their account... so it's not a moral argument then you don't care as long as nobody sees it. or is it just that you cant justify using twitch to punish them unless it happens on stream yeh i think that is probably the reason. this guy should be punished worse than any other abuser because he did it on stream which is clearly worse than doing behind closed doors.. wonder what we should do to someone who does it in a movie theater i mean it is dark so nobody could see but it's also in public....decisions decisions

          If you want to have a polite and meaningful discussion about this issue I am happy to, but if you want to call me a hypocrite and speak sarcastically to me about it then I'm not really interested to be honest. With response to your point about a DUI, would you expect that person to drive trucks for a living? Or be a police officer? What about jobs that require police checks? We make rules about peoples fitness for careers all the time. If he did get counseling and was remorseful for his behaviour than that may say my opinion, but ultimately I am not sure that giving someone a platform to broadcast themselves if they have abused someone is necessarily a good idea.

            i think u meant sway your opinion thats good

            i think this boils down to twitch should do more but i dont think banning him is the way to go they have power over this guy they should use it to force him into counselling the only way that doesn't help is if hes a headcase of some sort. most of the people here are not asking for anything like that they don't want to help solve DV they just want to punish punish punish. i thought you were the same so i got pissed off at you.

            the guy who murdered my uncle actually got off scott free he didnt even get DUI charges because nobody thought he would get off for murder after doing a u turn to hit him a second time but jury's sometimes are full of retards. that being said legally he could be a truck driver and although i think he should have been imprisoned theres no reason he couldnt be a truck driver after he got out or right now. Anyone who gets a DUI can still drive for work or otherwise after the suspension is lifted, in some cases people like tradies are allowed to drive for work even while they have a suspended license for DUI because they can't work if they can't drive so they are allowed to drive a certain vehicle during work hours only.

            can people with a DUI conviction be a cop i don't know probably not it seems what your advocating is some kind of moral criteria for streamers. if your just talking like violent convictions assault, armed robbery that kind of thing it sounds perfectly fine until you get some poor bastard banned for life because he was attacked in a bar fights back and gets charged with assault which often happens in these situations.

            you cant make it about "but he did it on stream so twitch should yeet him" because and to borrow a shallow argument from others in this thread "that will mean ppl think it's ok to hit your spouse just don't do it on stream tehe" stupid argument but sometimes i like stupid.

            Anyway the twitch rules should stay just how they are vague as fuck and the process of striking and what violations incur what penalties completely secret behind closed doors. and the people lobbying twitch to "Do Better" should be pushing this in the direction of intervention and recovery not punitive abuse that solves nothing, i mean if it wasn't for twitch we wouldn't even know about this right theoretically he could still be smacking her around with nobody any the wiser.

            I spent a lot of time reminding everyone that the wife wasn't the innocent victim in all this and got a never ending stream of strawman abuse for doing so. Everyone wants his account banned permanently but i am cleverer and think that we can use his account as bait to force him into treatment which might stop him hitting his wife again or some other women. From what i can glean about the treatment for abusers it his very difficult short of a court order to get these men into programs very few ever attend without court orders. Maybe we use his twitch account to force him into treatment see how it goes then we could use it more broadly, ie golf membership well you need to attend counselling twice a week for 6 months failure to attend any of these will result in your membership being terminated.

            i don't know what we are doing now to combat DV isn't doing shit maybe it's time to try a different tactic maybe i'm insane i would be the last to know right?

    Of course he should be reprimanded, but I hope they look into her behaviour as well. There seemed to be abuse from both sides.

      Why would Twitch look at her behaviour? She's not a streamer and the only outcome anyone is talking about here is whether the behaviour everyone saw in the video is sufficient to get someone banned from Twitch.

      Unless you're arguing that throwing a piece of cardboard somehow justifies whacking that person across the face hard enough to make them cry, and therefore that Luke Munday should be entitled to a free pass?

    Yeah well Luke Munday's promising job to work as a technician at Telstra has gone out the window.
    But this is just pathetic how Luke Munday is saying that he wants to come back to livestream again after committing an assault charge by the New South Wales Police late last year.
    It's an absolute disgrace not only for Luke Munday but his pregnant wife who got assaulted and abused and all that for ignoring his pregnant wife's orders to turn off Fortnite and come to dinner.
    I don't think Luke Munday should ever livestream again because he's pushed his Fortnite online gaming too far.
    Luke Munday violent livestream assault has not only cost him his career at Telstra but his entire future altogether.
    I hope Luke Munday's case returns to the Camden magistrates court on Thursday.
    And since Luke Munday has an Apprehension Violence Order against him I don't think he should he see his pregnant wife or his two daughters until he says sorry for what he has done wrong.
    Luke Munday grow up.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now