[duxup]

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..

[wccrawford]

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

[unbalancedparen]

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.

[leereeves]

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.

[revvx]

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.

[duxup]

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.