TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: Zak S on April 08, 2020, 08:45:35 PM

Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 08, 2020, 08:45:35 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/fxi2zv/apology_to_zak_smith/

Merry Christmas.

EDIT:

https://twitter.com/Ettin64/status/1248038942777065472

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/fxi3it/apology_to_zak_smith/

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/apology-to-zak-smith.861914/
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 08, 2020, 08:55:42 PM
It got deleted. What's this all about?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 08, 2020, 08:58:56 PM
There's more now.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: KingCheops on April 08, 2020, 09:13:55 PM
Lol at TBP.  Their brains must be exploding.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Votan on April 08, 2020, 09:20:09 PM
Quote from: KingCheops;1126155
Lol at TBP.  Their brains must be exploding.

They appear to have just locked the thread
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Groom of the Stool on April 08, 2020, 09:20:45 PM
Champagne for everyone?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on April 08, 2020, 09:23:04 PM
Now THAT is funny.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: trechriron on April 08, 2020, 09:42:24 PM
I can't believe you made me look at TBP.

Personally, I would suggest pursuing legal action against businesses that decidedly impacted your income vs. individuals. Although... proving that some individuals were super hasty in their libel might help pursue legal action... you genius!

Frankly, in this particular fight I don't know who to believe. I like you. I like Mandy. Was not a shit storm I predicted coming. I may have made a small emotional investment in your coupling. I think I'm more disappointed in the breakup in general than any of the shit slinging (although, that is also pretty depressing...). In my naive little heart, I'm kind of hoping shit gets sorted and you all can go back to just worrying about creating and being, ya know?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on April 08, 2020, 10:19:15 PM
Kudos Zak!

Also, by the look of the Twitter responses, many clowns are offering themselves up as your next targets.

But more importantly, what new cool RPG stuff are you working on?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 08, 2020, 10:31:45 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1126169
Kudos Zak!

Also, by the look of the Twitter responses, many clowns are offering themselves up as your next targets.

But more importantly, what new cool RPG stuff are you working on?

Here you go: http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2020/04/new-fucking-content-buy-it.html
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Thornhammer on April 08, 2020, 11:31:38 PM
*blink blink*

Unexpected.  Interesting.

Tomorrow is payday.  Ten bucks, I think I can make that happen.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Arkansan on April 09, 2020, 01:08:09 AM
How delicious.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Joey2k on April 09, 2020, 01:43:33 AM
Very interesting
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Abraxus on April 09, 2020, 08:21:47 AM
I am not a fan of Zak to be honest yet seeing posters in those loinked threads lose their shit at Zak winning just made my day. They are pissed that Zak dared to use the law in his defense. You can damn well bet if it was done against him they would be celebrating imo. While also publicly saying they would also punch him in the face or something similar.

Again I may have said this many times yet I wonder if many people who are mentally ill have simply not been diagnosed as such. What do they expect that someone accuses someone else of physical assault and the accused not defend himself.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 09, 2020, 08:52:56 AM
Welcome to the Really Real World, TBP-ers. Where shooting your mouth off to defamatory levels might not be a smart idea.

BTW, Zak, that first link in your initial post? Dead. Deleted. Next time, archive :)
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 09, 2020, 09:23:39 AM
So one scumbag apologizes to another? Who literally gives a fuck, this has nothing to do with gaming. At all.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on April 09, 2020, 09:33:25 AM
It does move the gaming forums out of the age of the get away with saying anything internet.  I'd be really curious to see the rpg.net backstage right about now.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 09, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
reddit deleted it, the crybullies at rpg.net hid it...
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 09, 2020, 12:13:03 PM
Oh my. Seeing Ettin eat crow and literally pony up over it made my day.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 09, 2020, 01:24:26 PM
Quote from: Brad;1126219
So one scumbag apologizes to another? Who literally gives a fuck, this has nothing to do with gaming. At all.


I think you must have skimmed: one scumbag (Ettin) apologized to me (awesome guy).

Buy something.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: insubordinate polyhedral on April 09, 2020, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: Zak S;1126251
I think you must have skimmed: one scumbag (Ettin) apologized to me (awesome guy).

Buy something.


If you care to clarify something -- totally understand if you do not -- I was wondering, in your blog post, you wrote:

Quote from: Zak S
Originally I wasn't planning to publish any of it, but since reaction to the benefit for Adam Koebel's victims was so positive, I figured, ok, maybe there are some people in the online RPG scene who aren't gullible psychopaths.


Is that sarcasm, or do you think that Koebel's players were victimized by that incident?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 09, 2020, 02:45:35 PM
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1126258
If you care to clarify something -- totally understand if you do not -- I was wondering, in your blog post, you wrote:



Is that sarcasm, or do you think that Koebel's players were victimized by that incident?


His players? I mean maybe, I'd have to talk to them. He has definitely harassed and smeared people online over the years.

Anyway, it yall have other questions im on my blog or zakzsmith AT hawtmayle. I have a lot of stuff to check today. im out
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Theory of Games on April 09, 2020, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Zak S;1126148
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/fxi2zv/apology_to_zak_smith/

Merry Christmas.

EDIT:

https://twitter.com/Ettin64/status/1248038942777065472

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/fxi3it/apology_to_zak_smith/

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/apology-to-zak-smith.861914/

Congratulations Zak. I never doubted it was all bullshit, regardless of your detractors here.

Spit Truth to Power!!!

Add: you and Pundit have been and always will be the ultimate weapon versus the Story game consortium. Learn to work as one.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 09, 2020, 03:53:08 PM
Quote from: Zak S;1126251
I think you must have skimmed: one scumbag (Ettin) apologized to me (awesome guy).

Buy something.


Nahh, you're a worthless fucktard.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Groom of the Stool on April 09, 2020, 04:08:33 PM
Quote from: Brad;1126287
Nahh, you're a worthless fucktard.

I think he looks like a crackwhore.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Abraxus on April 09, 2020, 05:26:08 PM
No surprise from the TBP and other places trying to suppress what happened. When as a whole they created a narrative filled, escapist, echo chamber with their forum, except in the real world unlike an online Forum the reality is different. It is so funny to see the list of "how did this happen " style posts from SJWs who thought that hiding behind a keyboard shielded one from legal harm. I expect to see Zak win against Mandy too.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 09, 2020, 05:33:34 PM
Quote from: sureshot;1126305
No surprise from the TBP and other places trying to suppress what happened. When as a whole they created a narrative filled, escapist, echo chamber with their forum, except in the real world unlike an online Forum the reality is different. It is so funny to see the list of "how did this happen " style posts from SJWs who thought that hiding behind a keyboard shielded one from legal harm. I expect to see Zak win against Mandy too.

Ettin is one of their mods.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Theory of Games on April 09, 2020, 05:46:34 PM
Zak, make these turncoat bitches acknowledge how right you were.

They were in here wiping their asses with your name.

Fuck them.

Brown showers all around!!
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: S'mon on April 09, 2020, 06:08:23 PM
Ettin is certainly scum. I'm still not convinced Zak is exactly Mr Darcy when it comes to husband material, though. But I suppose he could be another Johnny Depp for all I know.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: JamesV on April 09, 2020, 07:21:02 PM
I was someone who had doubts about Zak when Mandy's accusation first came out and maybe I still do. OTOH, he's always been right about defending himself, and in court if he had to. Making Ettin eat crow is good news if you ask me.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on April 09, 2020, 07:27:11 PM
So, while I suspect many here can't actually access Tangency as banned users can't log in, there is some discussion on Tangency including a statement from a moderator that they are trying to put together a statement.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/mandy-morbid-and-two-others-accuse-zak-smith-of-abuse-harrassment-sexual-assault-warning-very-very-dark-read-redtext-in-posts-86-418.841424/page-76

I'd be really surprised if they aren't at risk of being considered complicit and as open to litigation as Ettin.  I guess it might depend on individual statements made by specific mods, particularly in the linked thread.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Bunch on April 09, 2020, 08:12:27 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1126306
Ettin is one of their mods.


I don't believe he or she is currently a mod.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Bunch on April 09, 2020, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: David Johansen;1126325
So, while I suspect many here can't actually access Tangency as banned users can't log in, there is some discussion on Tangency including a statement from a moderator that they are trying to put together a statement.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/mandy-morbid-and-two-others-accuse-zak-smith-of-abuse-harrassment-sexual-assault-warning-very-very-dark-read-redtext-in-posts-86-418.841424/page-76

I'd be really surprised if they aren't at risk of being considered complicit and as open to litigation as Ettin.  I guess it might depend on individual statements made by specific mods, particularly in the linked thread.
I know nothing of the whole affair but if Ettin is not a lawyer the ability for someone with either the legal skills or money to win against someone without the above is pretty trivial.  OJ gave the world a lesson on that.

I believe a fair number of the mods there are lawyers so it might be a more challenging litigation.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on April 09, 2020, 08:26:19 PM
I'm just saying they probably want a lawyer to give a good read through to the decision against Ettin before they write their statement.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Arkansan on April 09, 2020, 10:31:46 PM
Reddit deleted the post and comments so fast that they can't even be viewed on removeddit. Scummy of them.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 09, 2020, 11:49:17 PM
Quote from: Arkansan;1126341
Reddit deleted the post and comments so fast that they can't even be viewed on removeddit. Scummy of them.

Reddit is full of cowards and shills.  If it goes against their moral busybody groupthink, down the memory hole it goes.  "Scummy" doesn't even touch the surface of how low Reddit is.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 09, 2020, 11:50:33 PM
Quote from: Bunch;1126328
I don't believe he or she is currently a mod.

It's a him.  But anyway, that's news to me.  I know he was for a while.  I obviously don't follow him around, and literally this is the first time I've wasted CPU cycles on him in a few years.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 09, 2020, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: David Johansen;1126325
So, while I suspect many here can't actually access Tangency as banned users can't log in, there is some discussion on Tangency including a statement from a moderator that they are trying to put together a statement.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/mandy-morbid-and-two-others-accuse-zak-smith-of-abuse-harrassment-sexual-assault-warning-very-very-dark-read-redtext-in-posts-86-418.841424/page-76

I'd be really surprised if they aren't at risk of being considered complicit and as open to litigation as Ettin.  I guess it might depend on individual statements made by specific mods, particularly in the linked thread.

Screencap it, post it here.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on April 10, 2020, 12:14:01 AM
The thing is, I've not the first clue whether the shitty marriage accusations are true.  I wouldn't know this guy from Adam, for all I know I've walked past him on the street.  But because I am a functioning adult, I don't repeat other peoples' accusations as fact on public spaces.  It's really not that hard, but a lot of people lately seem incapable of it, and aren't concerned about whatever impact it may have on the person being spoken of.  For that reason alone I support legal reminders for people that drive-by cancellings aren't a victimless crime.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on April 10, 2020, 04:46:50 AM
Ettin has a gofundme now and lots of posters with names are giving ZakS more targets.

You would think that after seeing ZakS win a lawsuit against a clown who made unsubstantiated claims against him, they would avoid making...unsubstantiated claims against him.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Godfather Punk on April 10, 2020, 06:31:45 AM
Was part of the suit that Paul Matijevic had to post the apology on specific sites? And if those sites remove the apology, is Ettin then in default?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 10, 2020, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1126376
Was part of the suit that Paul Matijevic had to post the apology on specific sites? And if those sites remove the apology, is Ettin then in default?


I think it might become a problem because how can Ettin prove that he posted the apology if the sites put the apology down the good old memory hole?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 10, 2020, 09:59:44 AM
Quote from: wmarshal;1126386
I think it might become a problem because how can Ettin prove that he posted the apology if the sites put the apology down the good old memory hole?

Like rpg.net, somethingawful or r/rpg are interested in anything approaching the truth.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Cave Bear on April 10, 2020, 10:15:36 AM
I can't say that I'm a fan of Zak Smith, but I also haven't actually seen any evidence of his alleged wrongdoings, and the worst I've personally endured from him has been mild annoyance.
Ettin, however, has been a complete fucking cunt to me, and I know that if I were to ever actually publish my game that him and his little clique would probably hurl hateful, false accusations against myself, and try to get my game canceled. I'm glad he's getting his comeuppance, and I hope that he will learn his lesson.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: kythri on April 10, 2020, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: Cave Bear;1126391
and I hope that he will learn his lesson.

Since he's conned people into paying his legal fees and settlement via GoFundMe, I doubt there will be any lesson learned.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: thedungeondelver on April 10, 2020, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: Cave Bear;1126391
I can't say that I'm a fan of Zak Smith, but I also haven't actually seen any evidence of his alleged wrongdoings, and the worst I've personally endured from him has been mild annoyance.
Ettin, however, has been a complete fucking cunt to me, and I know that if I were to ever actually publish my game that him and his little clique would probably hurl hateful, false accusations against myself, and try to get my game canceled. I'm glad he's getting his comeuppance, and I hope that he will learn his lesson.

I agree re: Ettin's general cuntiness but what specifically did he do to you?  

I mean, obviously Australia's laws are such that you could potentially force him to apologize to you :D
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Cave Bear on April 10, 2020, 12:25:04 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1126401
I agree re: Ettin's general cuntiness but what specifically did he do to you?  

I mean, obviously Australia's laws are such that you could potentially force him to apologize to you :D


I got banned from rpg.net. Actually, now that I type it out, it's kind of a stupid thing to hold a grudge over years over the fact.
Still, fuck Ettin.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on April 10, 2020, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: Valatar;1126356
But because I am a functioning adult, I don't repeat other peoples' accusations as fact on public spaces.

Quoted for Truth. +1
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: World_Warrior on April 10, 2020, 03:12:15 PM
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1126376
Was part of the suit that Paul Matijevic had to post the apology on specific sites? And if those sites remove the apology, is Ettin then in default?

This was the case with the lawsuit that The Quartering brought against the Antifa dude that assaulted him. Though it was ordered that BOTH parties submit public apologies. The Quartering receieved an undisclosed amount of money as well.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: EOTB on April 10, 2020, 05:24:39 PM
An agreement can't bind 3rd parties not part of the agreement.

It is still on his personal twitter feed, and I expect it will remain so for whatever time period was stipulated
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 10, 2020, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1126415
An agreement can't bind 3rd parties not part of the agreement.

It is still on his personal twitter feed, and I expect it will remain so for whatever time period was stipulated


IANAL, but I think you're correct that these websites can't be bound by the settlement, but Ettin is. If part of that agreement was for him to post those apologies on those websites, but now that they've been memory-holed does would that open things up where Zak can drag Ettin back to court? Zak's claim would be that Ettin didn't fulfill the settlement.

(I have to imagine those postings on those websites were a part of the settlement. I doubt Ettin posted there unless he had to.)

Ettin could perhaps show the court that he had no control over his apologies being removed, but that's still more interaction and costs that Ettin probably wants to avoid. Those websites might not have done Ettin any favors.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: EOTB on April 10, 2020, 07:28:25 PM
IANL either, but an agreement can't require someone not signing it, or controlled by someone other than a signatory, to perform.  Ettin performed by posting something.  He can't promise something he doesn't control will perform in a particular way.  I'd be very surprised if a lawyer would try to say the settlement was made invalid due to the memory holing.  Which is probably why one posting location stipulated was his own twitter feed, and (I'm guessing) that Ettin wouldn't of his own volition remove/shutter/protect his twitter account for whatever period of time.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 10, 2020, 07:30:26 PM
Also, some of those sites reacted very, very quickly in locking down and removing Ettin's apology statement. If Ettin gave them some kind of a heads up that the apology was coming so that they could remove could expose Ettin to more trouble since he acted to subvert the intent of the settlement.

I think. Again, IANAL.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 10, 2020, 07:32:06 PM
Quote from: EOTB;1126430
IANL either, but an agreement can't require someone not signing it, or controlled by someone other than a signatory, to perform.  Ettin performed by posting something.  He can't promise something he doesn't control will perform in a particular way.  I'd be very surprised if a lawyer would try to say the settlement was made invalid due to the memory holing.  Which is probably why one posting location stipulated was his own twitter feed, and (I'm guessing) that Ettin wouldn't of his own volition remove/shutter/protect his twitter account for whatever period of time.


But if part of the settlement were the other postings of the apology Ettin would have to show compliance, wouldn't he? He can't do that when those postings have been disappeared.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: EOTB on April 10, 2020, 07:33:29 PM
Courts accept screenshots all the time.  You can't bind me to keep something up on my website because some jerkwad told a 3rd jerkwad it would happen.

Edit - the point is more that I presume the lawyers involved were competent and didn't craft a settlement that would be considered invalid in its construction.  Stating Reddit would perform a certain way in an agreement, when Reddit (or RPGNet) aren't parties in the agreement, would be an invalid construction.  Stating that Party A had to post something on Reddit is OK (and also that Party A won't delete the post they've made), but then it is completely fulfilled in the moment of its posting (presuming it isn't deleted by Party A who does not control the subreddit).

Edit 2 - I'd guess the time of performance by Ettin was specified (you will post to popular subreddit "X" that you do not control at 4:30 EST on April 5) just so that screenshots could be taken; by Zak as well.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Aglondir on April 10, 2020, 11:52:36 PM
Quote from: Bunch;1126328
I don't believe he or she is currently a mod.


Currently, no. But he was on Oct 28, 2018. See post 5 under Rules and Guidelines.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on April 11, 2020, 03:22:41 AM
I'm sure ZakS has screenshots he'll post on his site so nobody can memory hole the story forever. It will exist for searching into the future (and ZakS will SEO the page for easy searching). But more importantly, it has shaken the RPG.net community and every time one of them donates to Ettin's fund, they will have tied their memory to the event. The message ZakS wanted to send has been heard loud and clear.

Also, Ettin is just Zak's first bomb drop. I suspect there will be more. It will be funny seeing the 3rd or 4th clown begging for GoFundMe cash after the donation exhaustion kicks in over at RPG.net.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on April 11, 2020, 03:54:57 AM
Lawfare works. Take notice.

And when they come for you, SUE.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: mightybrain on April 11, 2020, 06:29:43 AM
Hopefully he can use the payouts to fund follow up cases. As long as R0 is greater than one it should burn through SA like the pandemic.

Zak, I see Vornheim is still available on DTRPG. If I buy it there does the money still get to you?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Orphan81 on April 11, 2020, 09:25:54 AM
Quote from: Cave Bear;1126402
I got banned from rpg.net. Actually, now that I type it out, it's kind of a stupid thing to hold a grudge over years over the fact.
Still, fuck Ettin.


It's Ironic to me when I consider my own banning from RPG.net coming up on 6 years now...Particularly since the mod that banned me, was in turn himself banned due to Rape accusations coming out against him.

Male Feminists always project.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 11, 2020, 11:53:18 AM
Quote from: Orphan81;1126488
It's Ironic to me when I consider my own banning from RPG.net coming up on 6 years now...Particularly since the mod that banned me, was in turn himself banned due to Rape accusations coming out against him.

Male Feminists always project.


I've found it not uncommon that those who are the most agitated against any given behavior/crime/topic are often projecting their own issues on to others. There are several examples of politicians and clergy attacking gays, who then turn out to be gay themselves. There's no hate like self-hate.

On the other hand with others it's not so much an issue with projection as it's a deliberate move to be a wolf in sheep's clothing to better victimize others. With that rpg.net mod I suspect it was a conscious decision to pretend he was one of the "good guys" to act as a cover for his bad actions.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: insubordinate polyhedral on April 11, 2020, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1126464
nobody can memory hole the story forever

https://archive.fo/E3Ut6
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: DeadUematsu on April 11, 2020, 01:07:00 PM
The gofundme page comments are hilarious. Talk about beaten dogs yelping.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on April 11, 2020, 07:14:08 PM
I expect the second GoFundMe is gonna be even more fun! Best would be if people commenting in the first GoFundMe get smacked by ZakS so they have to do their own! Its easy if the purple nurgles want to support Ettin (2 heads, 0 brains) with their (misguided) sympathy without exposing themselves to legal action, but hot damn, there's a half dozen people there just begging to be used as a lawyer's target practice!

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1126507
https://archive.fo/E3Ut6


I clicked on the link and my computer popped up with panicked warnings of imminent digital doom. Any other link?

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to archive.fo. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: insubordinate polyhedral on April 12, 2020, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;1126551
I clicked on the link and my computer popped up with panicked warnings of imminent digital doom. Any other link?

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to archive.fo. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.


Sigh. Apologies. In all likelihood it's a mismatched DNS name warning for the SSL certificate, probably CloudFlare related. Unfortunately the DNS story for the Archive sites is squirrelly and there's periodic issues with the site from some networks.

You have a few options, depending on where the fault is coming from:

Substitute .fo for .today/.is/.li/.vn and see if it starts working.

Get yourself a copy of Tor Browser for just this kind of occasion.

For Firefox, you could give it a try with https://libredns.gr/ for DNS over HTTPS.

Or try setting your DNS resolvers to a different provider, e.g. https://www.opennic.org/

Otherwise, for DNS-is-distributed-and-oddly-emergent-and-convergent reasons, it might start working again $later.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: CarlD. on April 13, 2020, 08:25:16 AM
Quote from: trechriron;1126162
I can't believe you made me look at TBP.

What was the deal at rpg.net, the link is blocked for whatever reason.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: CarlD. on April 13, 2020, 08:31:06 AM
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1126401
I agree re: Ettin's general cuntiness but what specifically did he do to you?  

I mean, obviously Australia's laws are such that you could potentially force him to apologize to you :D


Ettin is one of the prime assholes that ended up with a Guard role in that goofballs little Stanford Prison experiment LARP.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 13, 2020, 08:44:13 AM
In regards to 'Is Ettin in trouble since TBP, etc are taking down his apologies?', my IANAL, from the hip answer would be 'no'. They are third parties and not beholden to any court order. All Ettin has to do is make the good-faith attempt to publicly apologize.

I don't know Zak from fucking Adam and I don't really care except insofar as I have become terribly suspicious of conjured accusations suddenly appearing, lacking any background, often years old.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Lychee of the Exchequer on April 14, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
I'm all for resolving grievances in a court of law instead of witch huntings or calumny. So I think Zak S. - even if he's (probably not) the Devil incarnate - did a good thing for all RPG players, and society at large, when he decided to sue a (probable) SJW asshole... and won.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2020, 05:55:39 AM
Let's party like it's June 22nd, 1941.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: spon on April 14, 2020, 08:45:14 AM
Like Churchill, you mean?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 14, 2020, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1126699
In regards to 'Is Ettin in trouble since TBP, etc are taking down his apologies?', my IANAL, from the hip answer would be 'no'. They are third parties and not beholden to any court order. All Ettin has to do is make the good-faith attempt to publicly apologize.

I don't know Zak from fucking Adam and I don't really care except insofar as I have become terribly suspicious of conjured accusations suddenly appearing, lacking any background, often years old.


I agree that TBP as a 3rd party can't be forced to do something it doesn't want to, but I think the situation with Ettin is more than hi making the attempt, but that he has to be able to show that he made the attempt. It's been mentioned before that he can probably do so with screenshots if he thought to take them, which isn't something I had originally considered. Whether or not he did is something I guess only he knows. The way his apology post was so completely memory-holed on TBP kind of surprised me. I would've thought they would have locked that thread after appending some statement on their part on how they thought Ettin's apology was bogus, etc. I can't recall a time when they just completely removed a thread. I've seen times when they've edited out content that broke their rules, but even then the url remains and it is noted on their board for infractions.

I think both Zak and Ettin are assholes of one kind or another, and I'm really not rooting for either. I guess I'm a little bit weirded out as to how completely TBP has tried to erase that Ettin's post ever occurred especially considering some of the other posts they've left up which had actually broken forum rules in very egregious manners.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Bunch on April 14, 2020, 12:46:48 PM
Quote from: wmarshal;1126820
I agree that TBP as a 3rd party can't be forced to do something it doesn't want to, but I think the situation with Ettin is more than hi making the attempt, but that he has to be able to show that he made the attempt. It's been mentioned before that he can probably do so with screenshots if he thought to take them, which isn't something I had originally considered. Whether or not he did is something I guess only he knows. The way his apology post was so completely memory-holed on TBP kind of surprised me. I would've thought they would have locked that thread after appending some statement on their part on how they thought Ettin's apology was bogus, etc. I can't recall a time when they just completely removed a thread. I've seen times when they've edited out content that broke their rules, but even then the url remains and it is noted on their board for infractions.

I think both Zak and Ettin are assholes of one kind or another, and I'm really not rooting for either. I guess I'm a little bit weirded out as to how completely TBP has tried to erase that Ettin's post ever occurred especially considering some of the other posts they've left up which had actually broken forum rules in very egregious manners.

It does undermine the statement they can't really delete all the posts from a given user who wants to delete their account because reasons.  They just demonstrated they can do if they don't like the content.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on April 14, 2020, 01:31:27 PM
Quote from: Bunch;1126822
It does undermine the statement they can't really delete all the posts from a given user who wants to delete their account because reasons.  They just demonstrated they can do if they don't like the content.


It does. Maybe people can ask TBP for the "Ettin Apology Special" if they want their account/posts deleted. Of course the TBP in true 1984 fashion could just pretend to have no idea what they're talking about.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 15, 2020, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: wmarshal;1126827
It does. Maybe people can ask TBP for the "Ettin Apology Special" if they want their account/posts deleted. Of course the TBP in true 1984 fashion could just pretend to have no idea what they're talking about.

Once again, because it bears repeating: sandbox theory. TBP's admin can do whatever they like, and short of someone buying the website out from under them, no one can really hold them to account. Oh, we can treat them with contempt (and we SHOULD, considering their stinking hypocrisy). But there is no one we can file a complaint with to get some of those mods ejected from their positions for their rampant idiocy.

That being said, I find it fascinating how busy they are dropping the hammer on their own posters.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Bunch on April 15, 2020, 10:55:03 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1126922
Once again, because it bears repeating: sandbox theory. TBP's admin can do whatever they like, and short of someone buying the website out from under them, no one can really hold them to account. Oh, we can treat them with contempt (and we SHOULD, considering their stinking hypocrisy). But there is no one we can file a complaint with to get some of those mods ejected from their positions for their rampant idiocy.

That being said, I find it fascinating how busy they are dropping the hammer on their own posters.


Technically it's always been possible. There nothing stopping them from deleting items in a database.  They're correct it would make some conversations ridiculous if all you could see was someone responding without and knowledge of context for what they're responding to.

On banning. They've successfully purged most people who disagree with them. Now all that's left is to purge is the assholes they agree with, people who think they aren't going far enough  and people who are just plain too negative to spend time around.  Of course at that point why talk politics at all?
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: CarlD. on April 15, 2020, 06:10:45 PM
Quote from: Bunch;1126932
Technically it's always been possible. There nothing stopping them from deleting items in a database.  They're correct it would make some conversations ridiculous if all you could see was someone responding without and knowledge of context for what they're responding to.

On banning. They've successfully purged most people who disagree with them. Now all that's left is to purge is the assholes they agree with, people who think they aren't going far enough  and people who are just plain too negative to spend time around.  Of course at that point why talk politics at all?

I've wondered why they don't just ban the topic all together for quite awhile. They more or less have for a pretty significant portion of by making creating threads on the US primaries, possibly US politics Mod only or only with their express permission (I forget which it is now).
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: PencilBoy99 on April 15, 2020, 06:16:11 PM
What happened to Demon City.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Armchair Gamer on April 15, 2020, 07:02:52 PM
Quote from: CarlD.;1126985
I've wondered why they don't just ban the topic all together for quite awhile. They more or less have for a pretty significant portion of by making creating threads on the US primaries, possibly US politics Mod only or only with their express permission (I forget which it is now).

  Because they are convinced that they provide a uniquely safe and welcoming space for a large portion of their membership.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 15, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: wmarshal;1126820
The way his apology post was so completely memory-holed on TBP kind of surprised me.
Nah. It's because of the association with legal action. They don't want anything to do with that. It was the same on bodybuilding.com. There was a guy who livestreamed his overdose suicide, the thread contained such gems as "do it phaggot". The mass killer Elliot Rodgers posted there under the name SupremeGentleman. And the forum developed an obsession with an underage instachick, "would plough, don't care what age," which made the news. All this and more, threads deleted - but all "soft delete", keeping them backstage out of public view, because one time they did a hard delete then got served by the FBI...

I was a mod on bodybuilding.com for a couple of years. I was demodded and shadowbanned (where you don't get a ban message, but just can't post or PM any more) with no reason given.

A big forum, it's all the same. Just like a large corporation and a government department have the same kind of obstructive bureaucracy. It's just people in large enough groups, and small stakes making for nasty politics. Same shit, different shovel.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: ArrozConLeche on April 16, 2020, 01:49:18 PM
TBP couldn't completely memory hole it:

http://archive.is/7PM5Q
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on April 16, 2020, 09:52:50 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1126922
That being said, I find it fascinating how busy they are dropping the hammer on their own posters.


My dad grew up under communism. While the rhetoric is always about how bad the enemy is, the enemy is out of their reach, so that leaves those who can be punished to be punished.

It's also why THIS forum must always be dedicated to "freeze peach" and never become an echo chamber. Every echo chamber devolves into purity tests and the eventual purity death spiral.
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on May 10, 2020, 01:04:25 PM
I noticed lots of threads lately about big deal RPG people who y'all think suck who, by wild coincidence, also are extremely guilty of defamation against me. I figured I'd mention that, though we disagree about many things, every RPG dollar I make (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-store.html) goes toward legal action against people who are widely despised on this forum.

So buy something (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-store.html).

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1126989
What happened to Demon City.

It's in layout. Every 2 weeks to a month Cheng sends us spreads.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4458[/ATTACH]
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: PencilBoy99 on May 10, 2020, 04:19:21 PM
I am very interested in Demon City!
Title: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on May 10, 2020, 04:40:23 PM
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1129500
I am very interested in Demon City!


It will be amazing. It had better be, I suppose.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on January 11, 2021, 04:58:29 PM
Late to the party, but Lord, it is good to read that Ettin get his ass quick in real life in a legal way !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: BronzeDragon on January 11, 2021, 10:04:26 PM
I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Theory of Games on January 11, 2021, 11:01:09 PM
Yes.

We know the SJWs wronged Zak. We know.

Let's move on.

I want to see your new products to the hobby. Not the overdone contributions we already have.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: myleftnut on January 11, 2021, 11:32:36 PM
Oh not this shit again.  Release your latest book.  After that release another one. Otherwise nobody cares about your drama.  There are no celebrities in this hobby bitch. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Razor 007 on January 12, 2021, 03:47:51 AM
That's some rich reality, right there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 12, 2021, 06:09:04 AM
Oh not this shit again.  Release your latest book.  After that release another one. Otherwise nobody cares about your drama.  There are no celebrities in this hobby bitch.

If you want me to see the movie, you have to wait for the theater to stop being on fire. Or maybe even help put it out.

I appreciate that all you want to be (or should have to be) is an audience member, but we have an arsonist problem right now, and I am the only fireman. It's not fair, but it is the situation.

So: be helpful or be both very patient and ready to be disappointed for a long time.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 12, 2021, 06:09:56 AM
Yes.

We know the SJWs wronged Zak. We know.

Let's move on.

I want to see your new products to the hobby. Not the overdone contributions we already have.

See above. There won't be any new prodcuts for a good long time.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on January 12, 2021, 06:27:06 AM
I see what you did there.

I did what I did and would do it again, if I am given the chance to, but I am not one of Zachary Smith’s bots (which he might have or not, not my life, not my problem) and I do not have any interest in his future endeavors.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 12, 2021, 12:59:51 PM
Then why would you necro the thread and risk summoning Shitmuffin?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on January 12, 2021, 02:47:59 PM
Then why would you necro the thread and risk summoning Shitmuffin?

Because I am a naughty, naughty boy who enjoys stirring the pot and never get bored to see those who are smeared by it !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 12, 2021, 03:16:18 PM
If anyone believes they have a legitimate grievance against me, you are most welcome to say what that is, and show your receipts.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 12, 2021, 04:11:58 PM
If anyone believes they have a legitimate grievance against me, you are most welcome to say what that is, and show your receipts.
You clearly haven't made enough diversity hires quit their careers as RPG writers.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on January 12, 2021, 05:54:45 PM
There won't be any new products for a good long time.

This is unfortunate.

Looking forward to Demon City when it arrives.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 12, 2021, 07:10:40 PM
Oh not this shit again.  Release your latest book.  After that release another one. Otherwise nobody cares about your drama.  There are no celebrities in this hobby bitch.

If you want me to see the movie, you have to wait for the theater to stop being on fire. Or maybe even help put it out.

I appreciate that all you want to be (or should have to be) is an audience member, but we have an arsonist problem right now, and I am the only fireman. It's not fair, but it is the situation.

Bitch, please. You're like a fireman who demanded that all the other firemen come save him when he got near the flames, and then later told the rest that they deserved to die in the flames.

You're a champion of nothing but your own interests, and you don't believe in Free Speech.  Again, you'd desperately wish to be part of SJW cool-kids club if only they let you in.  But they never will, because you did porn.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on January 12, 2021, 07:18:38 PM
We need to quit fighting amongst ourselves and fight the real enemy!

The Jewish Liberation Front?

No, the Romans!

Oh, them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 12, 2021, 07:27:16 PM
I stand by the things I believe. I'm not going to join some dumb right-wing crusade just because you dislike some of the people I dislike.

If you use "sjw" unironically I super don't want your help. But if there are better people than that here: Hi.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 12, 2021, 08:12:25 PM
SJWs are using SJW unironically these days, so *shrug emoji*
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 12, 2021, 08:37:01 PM
I stand by the things I believe. I'm not going to join some dumb right-wing crusade just because you dislike some of the people I dislike.

If you use "sjw" unironically I super don't want your help. But if there are better people than that here: Hi.

You stand by things you believe such as manufacturing narratives about people who you don’t like then trying to destroy them on the internet. Right?

You’re just another version of JMal.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 12, 2021, 08:49:16 PM
I stand by the things I believe. I'm not going to join some dumb right-wing crusade just because you dislike some of the people I dislike.

If you use "sjw" unironically I super don't want your help. But if there are better people than that here: Hi.

You stand by things you believe such as manufacturing narratives about people who you don’t like then trying to destroy them on the internet. Right?

You’re just another version of JMal.

Name such a person and provide receipts for this claim, Bradley.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: consolcwby on January 12, 2021, 09:50:19 PM
I... don't really understand this thread.
But I read it.
So, is it that if I buy something from the OP, he will take legal actions against someone I don't like?...
You know, I really never could stand that guy that made Theatrix.
If I buy a $10 item, what can I expect?
A nasty letter fom a derranged lawyer? (I hope!)
Or maybe a cryptic invitation to an ARG that already finished??
I'm poor right now, so what can I expect for my $$$?
 :(
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 12, 2021, 09:59:16 PM
I stand by the things I believe. I'm not going to join some dumb right-wing crusade just because you dislike some of the people I dislike.

If you use "sjw" unironically I super don't want your help. But if there are better people than that here: Hi.

Is defending other authors than yourself from being censored or blacklisted a "right wing crusade"? Because that's what I'm talking about here.

You think it's perfectly fine to censor people you don't like.  You just don't think it's fine for someone to censor YOU.  Which means you aren't really defending anyone but yourself.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 12, 2021, 11:09:07 PM
Lying isn't protected speech.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 13, 2021, 12:03:12 AM
I have no idea what you're referring to. I'm talking about other people who have faced blacklisting or censorship campaigns exactly like you and I have. But who's politics you just didn't like. Or that you just took as another opportunity to try to ingratiate yourself to the radical leftists in the hobby, to no avail.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 12:08:24 AM
I have no idea what you're referring to.

Then ask.

A person who likes free speech should also like lucid, understandable conversation. If not: what's it for?

Quote
I'm talking about other people who have faced blacklisting or censorship campaigns exactly like you and I have. But who's politics you just didn't like.

Literally no RPG author I am aware of--certainly not you or I--experienced censorship. I experienced people lying.

If you define "censorship" as a private platform being unwilling to publish your stuff, then:  My cousin has written a book of poems about horses. Print and distribute her book, Pundit, or else you are a censor.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 13, 2021, 12:12:09 AM
Zak, if you weren't already in the left's crosshairs for failing one of their purity tests, you'd be brigading alongside all the trannies/trenders, anarchists, and commies on RPG.net

Corporate censorship is still censorship, especially here in the age of corporatist monopolies and oligopolies.




Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 12:17:11 AM
A serious accusation, Samuel:

...still be brigading alongside all the trannies and commies on RPG.net
(emphasis mine)

Provide evidence of me brigading someone on RPGnet.

This is one of the few things I haven't done with trans people and communists by my side.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 13, 2021, 12:17:49 AM
Accidental double post. Delete this
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 13, 2021, 12:18:15 AM
Fuck, the forum's new formatting is tricky to get used to.

Anywho, Zak. Let's be real here, you're a communist and a punk and the only reason you cozied up to Pundit is because you got brigaded out by RPG.net because you dared to disagree with one of the "trans lesbian" (AKA straight male autogynephile predator) mods and they decided to smear you and excommunicate you.

If you weren't already banished, you'd definitely be brigading against Pundit and preaching for corporate censorship. Maybe you didn't brigade before, but I'm pretty sure you would have given the opportunity based on your behaviors and posts.

Okay, the evidence is circumstantial but given that you're a literal punk anarcho-communist, we're probably in "Scorpion and the Frog" territory.

Then again, I'm just a mentally ill wacko who saw the moralist Marxist and anarchist left take over damn near everything, so feel free to invalidate any opinions I have (as I'm sure you will)

I'm not going to fight you but I wanted to express my disappointment at you and get my two cents in.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 02:00:20 AM
Maybe you didn't brigade before, but I'm pretty sure you would have given the opportunity based on your behaviors and posts.

Find the "posts" and "behaviors" which indicate I would brigade someone on RPGnet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 13, 2021, 07:03:21 AM
All this bickering is great... But where's my copy of demon city more importantly?

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 13, 2021, 09:00:17 AM
Name such a person and provide receipts for this claim, Bradley.

1) My name isn't "Bradley".
2) LOL if you think I'm going to waste my fucking time trying to dig up all the crap you've spewed over 10+ years. I have better things to do with my life. Have fun being a degenerate fuck.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 13, 2021, 09:02:28 AM
I have no idea what you're referring to. I'm talking about other people who have faced blacklisting or censorship campaigns exactly like you and I have. But who's politics you just didn't like. Or that you just took as another opportunity to try to ingratiate yourself to the radical leftists in the hobby, to no avail.

Why are you even entertaining this clown? He's been trained well in the ways of Marxist gaslighting; no matter WHAT evidence you provide, he will find some way to twist it so you're wrong.

100% serious: your OSR stuff is much more usable and interesting. Zak's crap is just art projects published under the guise of roleplaying supplements and the only reason people like them is because of the aesthetic, not the content.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 09:11:45 AM
So, great example:

Since:

-lying isn't protected speech, and

-Brad was asked for proof point-blank and didn't provide it, and

-burden of proof is on the person introducing the claim

...you could go "Ok, Brad is a liar, and is banned" and erase Brad's comments and that would not be censorship.


All this bickering is great... But where's my copy of demon city more importantly?

If your idea of fun is the whole "Oh, look, RPG people disagreeing ont he internet" thing then you won't like it, so don't worry about it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 13, 2021, 09:15:32 AM
so don't worry about it.

That's fine and dandy...

But as I backed the KS, and PAID for the product, I'd like to know when I can expect it. So I will have to 'worry' about it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 09:17:32 AM
so don't worry about it.

That's fine and dandy...

But as I backed the KS, and PAID for the product, I'd like to know when I can expect it. So I will have to 'worry' about it.

#metoo but, if you've been watching the updates, you know I already did my bit and it's in layout. So I know little more than you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 13, 2021, 09:22:46 AM
#metoo but, if you've been watching the updates, you know I already did my bit and it's in layout. So I know little more than you.

Well, that inspires confidence...

I can't say I'll be the first inline for your next kickstarter.





Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 09:27:54 AM
Quote

Well, that inspires confidence...

I can't say I'll be the first inline for your next kickstarter.

Oh well, I was not running or funding this kickstarter, so I have little influence. But there likely won't be another kickstarter ever again.

If I''m ever in a position to do a physical book again, crowdfunding will either be totally impossible or totally unnecessary.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: VisionStorm on January 13, 2021, 09:34:25 AM
Lying isn't protected speech.

Yes it is. It's right there within the 1st amendment. Anyone can lie about you and nothing will be done to them, unless you can prove damages in a court of law, which is extremely difficult and requires you to provide evidence that their lies could be used to specifically identify you and that you also suffered measurable damage (i.e. lost money and/or were physically attacked, etc. as a result). And if you're attacked or lost money because someone lied about a group you may have been affiliated with, but they didn't identify you specifically, you get nothing.

Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that lying is literally protected speech.

PS: Also, yes, getting someone banned off a "PrIvAtE pLaTfOrM" is censorship. "But...it's PrIvAtE pLaTfOrM" does not make it not censorship. It just means that people like to suck the dicks of corporations like fucking retards.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 09:38:09 AM
Lying isn't protected speech.

Yes it is. It's right there within the 1st amendment. Anyone can lie about you and nothing will be done to them, unless you can prove damages in a court of law,

Oh, that's not true at all. That's not even consistently true within the US.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mishihari on January 13, 2021, 09:48:19 AM
"Maxim 29:  The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."

Not going to buy a thing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 13, 2021, 10:14:24 AM


100% serious: your OSR stuff is much more usable and interesting. Zak's crap is just art projects published under the guise of roleplaying supplements and the only reason people like them is because of the aesthetic, not the content.

Well, thank you, I appreciate that!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 13, 2021, 10:16:19 AM
Quote

Well, that inspires confidence...

I can't say I'll be the first inline for your next kickstarter.

Oh well, I was not running or funding this kickstarter, so I have little influence. But there likely won't be another kickstarter ever again.


And here's why I've never done a Kickstarter and am unlikely to ever do one.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 13, 2021, 10:35:44 AM
And here's why I've never done a Kickstarter and am unlikely to ever do one.

In all fairness Pundit... If you did a KS I very much doubt it would end up like Zak's. Which had an estimated delivery date of June 2019 (if I remember correctly).

I don't think anyone really minds 'flexible deadlines' when it comes to RPG KS. It's only when they start going way off target people start to get pissed off. The second edition of Kult was another example of this. Grrrr.....

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 13, 2021, 10:39:23 AM
And here's why I've never done a Kickstarter and am unlikely to ever do one.

In all fairness Pundit... If you did a KS I very much doubt it would end up like Zak's. Which had an estimated delivery date of June 2019 (if I remember correctly).

I don't think anyone really minds 'flexible deadlines' when it comes to RPG KS. It's only when they start going way off target people start to get pissed off. The second edition of Kult was another example of this. Grrrr.....
I wonder how Zak feels to find himself in the same 'late' boat as Alex de Campi.

You know, between all the bullshit of last year, I don't think anyone would begrudge things running late. I'm STILL waiting for the System Shock remake, myself. But y'know... there's comes a point where you gotta put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 10:42:44 AM
Quote
I wonder how Zak feels to find

See this is the point of actual free speech: you don't have to wonder. You can ask the person.

I don't know who Alex is, but Demon City is the least of my worries. If it were up to me it'd be out, but I'm not running the kickstarter and I know it'll come out and I know the work is good.

This is how it always works on basically every project--Maze of the Blue Medusa, Red & Pleasant Land: I turn over the stuff on time, graphic design takes forever.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 13, 2021, 10:53:34 AM
Lying isn't protected speech.

Yes it is. It's right there within the 1st amendment. Anyone can lie about you and nothing will be done to them, unless you can prove damages in a court of law,

Oh, that's not true at all. That's not even consistently true within the US.
Not only is it true, it's red-letter law.  And it was enshrined into law (because the folks who did so were apparently wiser than today's bunch) because "lying" is a fundamentally subjective standard.  Anyone who has read a "fact check" done in the media knows that "lie" can mean anything from "doesn't interpret the facts the way that I do" to "fails to mention this other point."  That's why "lying" is a stupid and irrelevant charge.  What is important is whether or not what someone says is factual (and this is the reason why a factual statement cannot be legally defamatory, once again by red-letter law).  So if you want to tell me what someone said is not factual, I'll listen.  But your whole "Brad isn't able to provide statements to my standard and is therefore lying" mental masturbation earlier in the thread is the textbook example why no one with your mentality should ever be in a position of authority (or listened to by anyone in a position of authority), ever.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 10:56:18 AM
Quote
Not only is it true, it's red-letter law.

Nope. The goal posts (read up) are at "it's legal to lie unless you can prove damages". That's not true at all.

You can google, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on January 13, 2021, 11:01:20 AM
At some point people will realize that the buildings on both sides of the street are on fire and the fire fighters are pumping kerosene onto the structures.  Then the brass dog machines will run down the moderates and take their books from their cold dead hands.  There are no winners in the culture wars.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 13, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
Name such a person and provide receipts for this claim, Bradley.

So, great example:

Since:

-lying isn't protected speech, and

-Bradley was asked for proof point-blank and didn't provide it, and

-burden of proof is on the person introducing the claim

...you could go "Ok, Bradley is a liar, and is banned" and erase Bradley's comments and that would not be censorship.


You're an absolute faggot. Thanks for proving why no one should entertain you or even respond to you in any form. The level of stupidity in your followup is only overshadowed by the complete lack of self-awareness. It'd be amusing if it wasn't so annoying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 13, 2021, 11:05:59 AM
Well, thank you, I appreciate that!

You ever going to release a second volume of the Old School Companion? I remember you mentioning it in the past, been on the look out.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 11:08:42 AM
Quote
You're an absolute faggot.

Obviously it's bad to use slurs, but if you'd be willing to sign an affidavit to that effect, asserting that I am (as you assert) a complete homosexual, that would be very legally useful.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 13, 2021, 11:13:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/S3Sy79d.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/CDsavvy.gif)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: VisionStorm on January 13, 2021, 11:40:05 AM
Quote
Not only is it true, it's red-letter law.

Nope. The goal posts (read up) are at "it's legal to lie unless you can prove damages". That's not true at all.

You can google, I'm sure.

Nah, the goal posts are "lying isn't protected speech", when it literally is, outside some very limited exceptions, like defamation (which requires you to prove damages and that you were specifically mentioned) and lying to the feds (which I forgot about when writing that post). Outside of that all other forms of lying are legally protected, that I'm aware of. And I might be wrong (maybe I missed another exception), but in the VAST majority of cases people can lie their ass off and absolutely NOTHING would happen to them--they can even profit from it--and if that wasn't the case there wouldn't even be a mainstream media, or even alternative media or social media platforms, and every country in the world would just be a prison camp.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 13, 2021, 11:42:14 AM
Oh good, you people got the jackass on his "if you say anything negative about me its a lie and all liars are objectively evil and worthless" bit.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 11:43:53 AM
Quote
Outside of that all other forms of lying are legally protected, that I'm aware of.

Well you are now being informed that you are not aware of some important exceptions. You don't have to run straight into this: it's ok to admit maybe someone who's been doing little other than dealing with defamation law for two years might know more than you on the subject.

You can just go "Ok, maybe, I spoke too soon. I don't really care about this that much, bye."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 11:45:36 AM
Oh good, you people got the jackass on his "if you say anything negative about me its a lie

I have never said that.

For example: I am a terrible judge of character. That's negative--and not a lie.

I have just proved you are lying. Or--at the very least, misinformed and oddly aggressive about it.

Quote
and all liars are objectively evil and worthless" bit.

I am fascinated by your Liar Rights' Activism. Please tell us all more about this philosophy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Chris24601 on January 13, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
My reaction to this thread...
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/129823b09df234d7a277df682504d5b5/tenor.gif?itemid=7694184)
... now back to my writing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 12:10:55 PM
Now that we've gone through a few rounds of put-up-or-shut-up and folks have shown a lack of put-up, I am also happy to go back to what I was doing.

If anyone has any questions or seriously thinks any of the concerns raised so far have substance, as usual, contact: zakzsmith AT hawtmayle DAWT calm and I will be happy to entertin them.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GameDaddy on January 13, 2021, 12:12:38 PM
#metoo but, if you've been watching the updates, you know I already did my bit and it's in layout. So I know little more than you.

Eh, Well... you seem off track. Are you here because your Kickstarter has delivered?... If not, I'm confused. I see you say now you are not in Charge of the Kickstarter, and are confident it will be delivered soon. That would be good. Do you have a specific date for that?... becuase it is 2021 now.

If it has been delivered, why are we not talking about cool new gaming stuff, ...instead of hashing over old disagreements?

I have been rebuilding my Classic Games Collection. Since Christmas I have purchased Cross of Iron, and Crescendo of Doom, as well as Imperium, Dark Nebula, Mayday, Caesar:Alesia, and the Melee microgame. Just need Advanced Melee and Wizard now. Thinking about rebuilding my Europa collection, need to wait for the tax return though becuase Drang Nach Osten, and Unentschieden are pretty pricey.

I'm running two Original D&D games online every other week, and have setup to run five one-shots for GaryCon in March, Two original D&D, Traveller, Gamma World, and have to give the new baby a spin, and will be running Green Ronin's The Expanse set right after the Ring Gate is opened to colonization.

 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GnomeWorks on January 13, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
I am fascinated by your Liar Rights' Activism. Please tell us all more about this philosophy.

Don't speak to me directly again, you fucking narcissistic degenerate assclown. You are literally insane, and I would bill you for taking up my time if I thought you were capable of acknowledging other people as people.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on January 13, 2021, 01:43:59 PM
If anyone believes they have a legitimate grievance against me, you are most welcome to say what that is, and show your receipts.

I do ask 3 questions for you, Zachary Smith :

1 / How been an accessory to the impersonating of an actual person with whom you have a bad relationship i e : the Shannon Appecline stuff on Reddit, can be an objectively good thing ?

2 / How accusing a person with whom you a bad relationship (you accusing John Harper of stealing people with Blade in the Dark Kickstarter) with any kind of proof which would secure a criminal or civil condemnation before an actual court of law can be objectively an good thing ?

3 / How slapping a woman with whom you had a tryst after just asking her if she is into kinky things, quite a nebulous terms, and receive a yes to the question and not an yes to  consent be slapped by you can be an objectively a good thing.

Those are my questions to you, for which quite eager to have yours answers since I sincerely wish to be enlightened by you, who claims that he is an actual good man.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 01:50:37 PM

1 / How been an accessory to the impersonating of an actual person with whom you have a bad relationship i e : the Shannon Appecline stuff on Reddit, can be an objectively good thing ?

I didn't impersonate anyone.  If you know for a fact I did: sign an affadavit to that effect and give it to anyone you think might have legal use of it.


Quote
2 / How accusing a person with whom you a bad relationship (you accusing John Harper of stealing people with Blade in the Dark Kickstarter) with any kind of proof which would secure a criminal or civil condemnation before an actual court of law can be objectively an good thing ?

Harper was objectively proven to be dishonest before--he;d admitted to trolling and has made objectively false claims later. So, in that light, the fact he didn't spend his kickstarter money to fulfill the kickstarter on time was judged by me to be (on the balance of evidence) likely. Thus I called him "a kickstarter thief". He's guilty of two worse crimes.

I am happy to accept that he may just lack integrity and admit there's a zone of uncertainty around it.
Quote

3 / How slapping a woman with whom you had a tryst after just asking her if she is into kinky things, quite a nebulous terms, and receive a yes to the question and not an yes to  consent be slapped by you can be an objectively a good thing.

That didn't occur. If you know for a fact I did: sign an affadavit to that effect and give it to anyone you think might have legal use of it.

I'd also note that this whole thread--which you yourself necro'ed starts with someone who was forced to defend their claims of alleged "abuse" by me (including things you asked about here) in court admitting they were lying when they were asked to put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on January 13, 2021, 02:16:43 PM

1 / How been an accessory to the impersonating of an actual person with whom you have a bad relationship i e : the Shannon Appecline stuff on Reddit, can be an objectively good thing ?

I didn't impersonate anyone.  If you know for a fact I did: sign an affadavit to that effect and give it to anyone you think might have legal use of it.


Quote
2 / How accusing a person with whom you a bad relationship (you accusing John Harper of stealing people with Blade in the Dark Kickstarter) with any kind of proof which would secure a criminal or civil condemnation before an actual court of law can be objectively an good thing ?

Harper was objectively proven to be dishonest before--he;d admitted to trolling and has made objectively false claims later. So, in that light, the fact he didn't spend his kickstarter money to fulfill the kickstarter on time was judged by me to be (on the balance of evidence) likely. Thus I called him "a kickstarter thief". He's guilty of two worse crimes.

I am happy to accept that he may just lack integrity and admit there's a zone of uncertainty around it.
Quote

3 / How slapping a woman with whom you had a tryst after just asking her if she is into kinky things, quite a nebulous terms, and receive a yes to the question and not an yes to  consent be slapped by you can be an objectively a good thing.

That didn't occur. If you know for a fact I did: sign an affadavit to that effect and give it to anyone you think might have legal use of it.

Lol, I fucking know it ! You did not answer my first question : I did ask you being an accessory ex : having lending your internet connection and your laptop, to the person who did impersonate Appelcline on Reddit, Therefore I would ask you again.

For the 2nd question, you are a terrible person for writing the obscene and abject thing you had written. Nobody on this planet should be accused of third count of crime of felon because he had eventually commit 2 counts of another crime. That is not an actual lawful and good system of justice works, that how the Inquisition did work. You should really learn about law, good and modern criminal justice before even dating to write this absolute travesty of Justice !

For the 3rd, just plead the 5th amendment of your constitution which allow to lawfully and legally to do not respond to my question.

Thanks you dearly and sincerely, I was enlightened !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 13, 2021, 02:21:54 PM
Quote
You did not answer my first question : I did ask you being an accessory ex : having lending your internet connection and your laptop, to the person who did impersonate Appelcline on Reddit, Therefore I would ask you again.

Oh, let me clarify: nobody impersonated Shannon Appelcline, that I know of.

Quote
For the 2nd question, you are a terrible person for writing the obscene and abject thing you had written. Nobody on this planet should be accused of third count of crime of felon because he had eventually commit 2 counts of another crime. That is not an actual lawful and good system of justice works, that how the Inquisition did work. You should really learn about law, good and modern criminal justice before even dating to write this absolute travesty of Justice !

1. Are you making a moral or a criminal accusation?
2. Nothing I accused Harper of is a felon. I understand english is not your first language--that's part of the problem, probably.
3. You've heard the Clash song "Police are thieves"? or "Capitalism is theft"? My bases are covered, legally and morally: I think Harper had a moral obligation to do what he said and spend money to do it if he had to. You can disagree, but you can't say I lied.

Quote
For the 3rd, just plead the 5th amendment of your constitution which allow to lawfully and legally to do not respond to my question.

I did respond: the thing you claimed happened did not occur. This is a response.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on January 13, 2021, 02:27:55 PM
I have no idea what you're referring to. I'm talking about other people who have faced blacklisting or censorship campaigns exactly like you and I have. But who's politics you just didn't like. Or that you just took as another opportunity to try to ingratiate yourself to the radical leftists in the hobby, to no avail.

Why are you even entertaining this clown? He's been trained well in the ways of Marxist gaslighting; no matter WHAT evidence you provide, he will find some way to twist it so you're wrong.

100% serious: your OSR stuff is much more usable and interesting. Zak's crap is just art projects published under the guise of roleplaying supplements and the only reason people like them is because of the aesthetic, not the content.

I like both RPGPundit's RPG content and Zak's RPG content, and find them both usable and interesting (and if money were more available these days I'd be buying both of their content more often). In fact I don't much like Zak's aesthetic approach - but I do find a lot of his content of high utility. Vornheim: The Complete City Kit is highly useful to me sometimes, for example. And not because of the artwork, which isn't much in line with my personal artistic tastes.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Spike on January 13, 2021, 02:45:11 PM
Note to self: If I ever need a few days... who knows, maybe weeks, of Internet Laffs all I need to do is necro this thread, or any other Zak S. thread, which will automatically function as a 'Summon Obnoxious Idiot' spell, and I can watch the entire fucking forum degenerate into a tarball of the most hilariously misguided semantic debates.

Where is my :chef kiss: emoji?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on January 13, 2021, 03:01:46 PM
Quote
You did not answer my first question : I did ask you being an accessory ex : having lending your internet connection and your laptop, to the person who did impersonate Appelcline on Reddit, Therefore I would ask you again.

Oh, let me clarify: nobody impersonated Shannon Appelcline, that I know of.

Quote
For the 2nd question, you are a terrible person for writing the obscene and abject thing you had written. Nobody on this planet should be accused of third count of crime of felon because he had eventually commit 2 counts of another crime. That is not an actual lawful and good system of justice works, that how the Inquisition did work. You should really learn about law, good and modern criminal justice before even dating to write this absolute travesty of Justice !

1. Are you making a moral or a criminal accusation?
2. Nothing I accused Harper of is a felon. I understand english is not your first language--that's part of the problem, probably.
3. You've heard the Clash song "Police are thieves"? or "Capitalism is theft"? My bases are covered, legally and morally: I think Harper had a moral obligation to do what he said and spend money to do it if he had to. You can disagree, but you can't say I lied.

Quote
For the 3rd, just plead the 5th amendment of your constitution which allow to lawfully and legally to do not respond to my question.

I did respond: the thing you claimed happened did not occur. This is a response.

Question 1 : ok, I have to provide an actual link of any claim of accessory to impersonate Shannon Appleclibz.

Question 2  : ok, I have to provide an actual quote of you calling John Harper a thief or any paraphrasing of this word.

Question 3 : ok, I am not a member of LA district attorney office but a private and non USA citizen.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on January 13, 2021, 08:55:53 PM
Note to self: If I ever need a few days... who knows, maybe weeks, of Internet Laffs all I need to do is necro this thread, or any other Zak S. thread, which will automatically function as a 'Summon Obnoxious Idiot' spell, and I can watch the entire fucking forum degenerate into a tarball of the most hilariously misguided semantic debates.

Where is my :chef kiss: emoji?

dereksmartdereksmartdereksmart
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 13, 2021, 09:37:11 PM
Well, thank you, I appreciate that!

You ever going to release a second volume of the Old School Companion? I remember you mentioning it in the past, been on the look out.

Yes, it absolutely will happen. It will undoubtedly be the next compilation, either that or a Medieval Adventures compilation. It will no doubt come out this year, but who knows when.  Some time after The Invisible College, I presume.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 13, 2021, 10:30:58 PM
Oh good, you people got the jackass on his "if you say anything negative about me its a lie

I have never said that.

For example: I am a terrible judge of character. That's negative--and not a lie.

I have just proved you are lying. Or--at the very least, misinformed and oddly aggressive about it.

Quote
and all liars are objectively evil and worthless" bit.

I am fascinated by your Liar Rights' Activism. Please tell us all more about this philosophy.

The Clash sucks

That is all.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 13, 2021, 10:40:14 PM
The Clash sucks
That is all.

Absolutely Doc! About as punk as Mike Pence...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rocksfalleverybodydies on January 14, 2021, 01:08:57 AM
dereksmartdereksmartdereksmart

Haha.  A very dangerous summoning only attempted by those who do not fear death.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 14, 2021, 08:20:47 AM
Derek Smart vs Zak S. We can put it on pay per view. Raise enough money to buy Pundit some new RPG books :D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: ThatChrisGuy on January 14, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
Note to self: If I ever need a few days... who knows, maybe weeks, of Internet Laffs all I need to do is necro this thread, or any other Zak S. thread, which will automatically function as a 'Summon Obnoxious Idiot' spell, and I can watch the entire fucking forum degenerate into a tarball of the most hilariously misguided semantic debates.

Where is my :chef kiss: emoji?

dereksmartdereksmartdereksmart

Cleve?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on January 14, 2021, 11:06:13 AM
I like both RPGPundit's RPG content and Zak's RPG content, and find them both usable and interesting (and if money were more available these days I'd be buying both of their content more often). In fact I don't much like Zak's aesthetic approach - but I do find a lot of his content of high utility. Vornheim: The Complete City Kit is highly useful to me sometimes, for example. And not because of the artwork, which isn't much in line with my personal artistic tastes.

You're certainly allowed (LOL ALLOWED!) to like both; I still maintain Pundit's is vastly more useful, but then again I have no idea what sort of games you run. The usability of the material in no way undermines the fact that Zak S is a narcissistic douchelord supreme whose emotional development is barely above toddler. Pundit can also be an asshole of sorts, but I've NEVER seen him try to censor anyone or manufacture claims of perceived slights and try to destroy people because he doesn't like them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 14, 2021, 11:15:23 AM
Pundit also does'nt insult his customers...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Jaeger on January 14, 2021, 12:18:14 PM
The Clash sucks
That is all.

Absolutely Doc! About as punk as Mike Pence...

100% Correct.

Never let it be said that on the RPGsite we shy away from the Truth.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 14, 2021, 03:04:47 PM
The Clash sucks
That is all.

Absolutely Doc! About as punk as Mike Pence...

Punk sucks in general.

Especially the "real" punk bans. Fuck that pretentious bullshit.

But that's just my personal opinion, so feel free to disagree
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 14, 2021, 06:55:55 PM
so feel free to disagree

I would but I'm too lazy... Knock yourself out!




Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: moonsweeper on January 14, 2021, 07:03:02 PM
The Clash sucks
That is all.

Absolutely Doc! About as punk as Mike Pence...

Punk sucks in general.

Especially the "real" punk bans. Fuck that pretentious bullshit.

But that's just my personal opinion, so feel free to disagree

Sammy, I think you buy into Henry Rollins self-aggrandizement too much...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 15, 2021, 12:03:30 PM
The Clash sucks
That is all.

Absolutely Doc! About as punk as Mike Pence...

Punk sucks in general.

Especially the "real" punk bans. Fuck that pretentious bullshit.

But that's just my personal opinion, so feel free to disagree

Sammy, I think you buy into Henry Rollins self-aggrandizement too much...

Nah, I genuinely don't like the "true punk" bands and don't get why punk is so lionized in the culture. The music sucks and the subculture is pretentious and snooty.

Metal and Classic Rock are good. Punk is bad.

Also, in a perfect world, the 1970's would've ended with punk dying and disco living on instead.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 15, 2021, 12:17:12 PM
Metal and Classic Rock are good. Punk is bad.

Nah... Metal is the most pretentious stuff about, and classic rock is meh. :)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on January 15, 2021, 01:15:46 PM
Pundit can also be an asshole of sorts, but I've NEVER seen him try to...manufacture claims of perceived slights and try to destroy people because he doesn't like them.

Seriously, you've never seen Pundit manufacture, or at least massively exaggerate, perceived slights and try to at least take the slighters down a peg or ten? It's like you don't even know who Pundit is! Come on dude. That is literally his online persona. It's his bread and butter. He takes a mostly innocuous comment, and blows it up into a major issue as if it's an attack on all that is good and decent in the RPG world and tells you to fight them as if your RPG life depended on it. And then goes on to the next topic the following week making similar claims. This is what he does. It's what he's been doing since The Forge.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 15, 2021, 01:33:02 PM
Pundit can also be an asshole of sorts, but I've NEVER seen him try to...manufacture claims of perceived slights and try to destroy people because he doesn't like them.

Seriously, you've never seen Pundit manufacture, or at least massively exaggerate, perceived slights and try to at least take the slighters down a peg or ten? It's like you don't even know who Pundit is! Come on dude. That is literally his online persona. It's his bread and butter. He takes a mostly innocuous comment, and blows it up into a major issue as if it's an attack on all that is good and decent in the RPG world and tells you to fight them as if your RPG life depended on it. And then goes on to the next topic the following week making similar claims. This is what he does. It's what he's been doing since The Forge.

Well, Pundit takes the piss... And likes to wind people up.

But he's not rude to his customers and is a very good fellow to work with. He gave me loads of help with my game as a consultant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: moonsweeper on January 15, 2021, 06:58:37 PM
The Clash sucks
That is all.

Absolutely Doc! About as punk as Mike Pence...

Punk sucks in general.

Especially the "real" punk bans. Fuck that pretentious bullshit.

But that's just my personal opinion, so feel free to disagree

Sammy, I think you buy into Henry Rollins self-aggrandizement too much...

Nah, I genuinely don't like the "true punk" bands and don't get why punk is so lionized in the culture. The music sucks and the subculture is pretentious and snooty.

Metal and Classic Rock are good. Punk is bad.

Also, in a perfect world, the 1970's would've ended with punk dying and disco living on instead.

I'm genuinely curious as to who you consider to be "true punk" bands...because pretentious and snooty are not words I would use for the majority of them.  Although I could see that applying to Rollins because he has an exaggerated opinion of his own importance...

but that was why I mentioned him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mordred Pendragon on January 16, 2021, 12:18:50 AM
Metal and Classic Rock are good. Punk is bad.

Nah... Metal is the most pretentious stuff about, and classic rock is meh. :)

Methinks the punk doth project too much

All the complains punks have about metal is far more applicable to punk and the punk scene. It reeks of projection and pretentiousness.

Punk is pretentious pseudo-intellectual conformity masquerading as non-conformity
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Garry G on January 16, 2021, 06:33:58 PM
Metal and Classic Rock are good. Punk is bad.

Nah... Metal is the most pretentious stuff about, and classic rock is meh. :)

Methinks the punk doth project too much

All the complains punks have about metal is far more applicable to punk and the punk scene. It reeks of projection and pretentiousness.

Punk is pretentious pseudo-intellectual conformity masquerading as non-conformity

It's really good fun though. Like lot's of fun, totally teckle.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 16, 2021, 07:37:20 PM
Whatever the topic of this thread might be, I know what it absolutely is NOT: it is NOT about what styles of music you like

Doc Sammy you have brought this up multiple times on multiple threads over long periods.

Do it once more on ANY thread that is not EXPLICITLY a thread about music, and you will be banned.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 16, 2021, 07:38:00 PM
Pundit can also be an asshole of sorts, but I've NEVER seen him try to...manufacture claims of perceived slights and try to destroy people because he doesn't like them.

Seriously, you've never seen Pundit manufacture, or at least massively exaggerate, perceived slights and try to at least take the slighters down a peg or ten? It's like you don't even know who Pundit is! Come on dude. That is literally his online persona. It's his bread and butter. He takes a mostly innocuous comment, and blows it up into a major issue as if it's an attack on all that is good and decent in the RPG world and tells you to fight them as if your RPG life depended on it. And then goes on to the next topic the following week making similar claims. This is what he does. It's what he's been doing since The Forge.

Well, Pundit takes the piss... And likes to wind people up.

But he's not rude to his customers and is a very good fellow to work with. He gave me loads of help with my game as a consultant.


I appreciate that!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on January 17, 2021, 09:05:04 AM

I appreciate that!

No problem mate... Credit where credit is due!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on January 17, 2021, 11:03:05 PM
You're a champion of nothing but your own interests, and you don't believe in Free Speech.  Again, you'd desperately wish to be part of SJW cool-kids club if only they let you in.  But they never will, because you did porn.

Zack's anti-Free Speech?

That would be a weird position for him. His persona and careers (both art and RPGs) depends entirely on a robust freedom of expression.

As for the kewl-kids club, its funny how puritanical they are about Zack's porno past. I think its more than his past, but the fact he didn't do the usual 180 "prons are bad, mkay" when he left the industry and he even dared to combine D&D and porn and that concept paid off (until it didn't).
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on January 17, 2021, 11:06:04 PM
You're a champion of nothing but your own interests, and you don't believe in Free Speech.  Again, you'd desperately wish to be part of SJW cool-kids club if only they let you in.  But they never will, because you did porn.

Zack's anti-Free Speech?

That would be a weird position for him. His persona and careers (both art and RPGs) depends entirely on a robust freedom of expression.

As for the kewl-kids club, its funny how puritanical they are about Zack's porno past. I think its more than his past, but the fact he didn't do the usual 180 "prons are bad, mkay" when he left the industry and he even dared to combine D&D and porn and that concept paid off (until it didn't).

Never trust anyone who talks that way, Cat, things are always less boring than Pundit makes them out to be:  http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2018/04/barney-rosset-james-raggi-and-why-youre.html (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2018/04/barney-rosset-james-raggi-and-why-youre.html).
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Spinachcat on January 17, 2021, 11:36:16 PM
And here's why I've never done a Kickstarter and am unlikely to ever do one.

Kickstarter is a GREAT tool, but like all tools, it must be understood and wielded properly. Our playtest and design group has several people who launch their own KS vs. those who farm them out and there's many, many issues with both approaches.

Self-publishing has many downfalls, but with all that responsibility does come autonomy. The KS were I've seen the MOST issues is the kind where an author is assumed to be responsible party, but in reality, the unnamed background parties are in control and dropping the ball.

Actually just a strategy session about exactly that situation on Friday. 

Then the brass dog machines will run down the moderates and take their books from their cold dead hands.  There are no winners in the culture wars.

A) Fuck the moderates. Mushy middle wants to be sheep? Great, then don't complain when the shearing starts and their asses end up on the BBQ spit.

B) Plenty of winners in the culture wars, but people should be careful what they ask for and learn to recognize grifters. But that will never happen.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on January 17, 2021, 11:48:10 PM
Well, the mushy middle that wants the sociopaths from both sides who are agitating for a scorched earth war to be taken out and shot in the street but yeah.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Two Crows on January 20, 2021, 02:01:26 PM
If I buy a $10 item, what can I expect?
A nasty letter fom a derranged lawyer? (I hope!)


BAM!

Just like that, I have a new career idea ...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 20, 2021, 04:53:40 PM
Quote
That is literally his online persona. It's his bread and butter. He takes a mostly innocuous comment, and blows it up into a major issue as if it's an attack on all that is good and decent in the RPG world and tells you to fight them as if your RPG life depended on it. And then goes on to the next topic the following week making similar claims. This is what he does. It's what he's been doing since The Forge.

Well there is sort of trend among anti-SJW content creators - like I think Quartering is good example in gaming/movie world, to take some random shit from SJW no-names from Twitter and present it in scandalous form as next stage of ultra epic battle or smth. Which is bit disenheartening you expect some big battle waging and it's like minor quarrel between neomaoist tankie and pink-haired agender woman with on/ona pronouns one page 234 of Twitter
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Two Crows on January 20, 2021, 06:24:06 PM
#metoo but, if you've been watching the updates, you know I already did my bit and it's in layout. So I know little more than you.

I have been rebuilding my Classic Games Collection. Since Christmas I have purchased Cross of Iron, and Crescendo of Doom, as well as Imperium, Dark Nebula, Mayday, Caesar:Alesia, and the Melee microgame. Just need Advanced Melee and Wizard now. Thinking about rebuilding my Europa collection, need to wait for the tax return though becuase Drang Nach Osten, and Unentschieden are pretty pricey.


Did we just become best friends?

(https://fastly.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/2018/05/deadpool_2_and_cable.jpg)


I'm pretty certain I spent more time with HOI2 than I did my ex-wife.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on January 20, 2021, 09:32:10 PM
Quote
That is literally his online persona. It's his bread and butter. He takes a mostly innocuous comment, and blows it up into a major issue as if it's an attack on all that is good and decent in the RPG world and tells you to fight them as if your RPG life depended on it. And then goes on to the next topic the following week making similar claims. This is what he does. It's what he's been doing since The Forge.

Well there is sort of trend among anti-SJW content creators - like I think Quartering is good example in gaming/movie world, to take some random shit from SJW no-names from Twitter and present it in scandalous form as next stage of ultra epic battle or smth. Which is bit disenheartening you expect some big battle waging and it's like minor quarrel between neomaoist tankie and pink-haired agender woman with on/ona pronouns one page 234 of Twitter

Most of the stuff I quote is not "random shit from no-names". Its stuff being said by people in control of the most powerful company in the industry, or major names in the new entryism into the hobby, or people who are about to be hired by WoTC for the stupid shit they said.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GameDaddy on January 21, 2021, 12:18:43 AM

Did we just become best friends?
I'm pretty certain I spent more time with HOI2 than I did my ex-wife.

Well, that looks interesting. The Europa I'm referring to is the Europa that a series of board wargames planned to cover combat over the entire European Theater of World War II at a scale that represents units from divisions down to battalions and game turns that represent two weeks of time. The series was launched in 1973, and is still in production, with over a twenty-two titles published and several more still in production, or planning. Most of these titles qualify as "monster games", a subgenre of wargames featuring extensive orders of battle, a complex ruleset and an unusually large game-map area with a detailed representation of the terrains they cover.

This was originally designed by Rich Banner and Frank Chadwick. They were brilliant, I think Rich was the original designer, and the lead graphics designer. The game was extremely easy to play, and the turns fast, once you get to know the rules, however the scope the entire war in Europe and North Africa, on maps that were made of hexes 16 miles across, made this a monster game. Drang Nach Osten alone, came with five 21"x27" hex maps with eight sheets numbering 1,792 counters. There were at least twenty-two games published as part of the series including:
 
Drang Nach Osten (Spread to the East) The German invasion of Russia from 1941-1942. Later republished as Fire in the East
Unentschieden (The Draw) WWII German invasion of Russia 1943-45. Later Republished as The East is Red.
Götterdämmerung - (Twilight of the Gods) An expansion to play in Eastern Europe through and beyond 1945...
Marita-Merkur - The German invasion of Greece and the Balkan States in 1940
Their Finest Hour - German planned invasion of Britain (including the air war) 1940
Narvik - German invasion of Norway 1940
Western Desert - North Africa Campaign simulates the campaigns in Egypt and Libya from December 1940 until January 1943, as well as the peripheral operations on Malta and Cyprus, and in Syria and Lebanon.
Case White - A three Player game, The combined German and Russian invasion of Poland 1939
The Fall of France - May 1940 Campaign in France
The Near East -  Three maps cover Asiatic Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Western Iran.
For Whom the Bell Tolls - Battles for Spain and Portugal
Torch - From November 1942 and the subsequent land campaign for control of Africa through May 1943.
The Second Front - depicts the Western Allied campaigns in Italy, France, and Germany from 1943 to 1945.
The Urals - A hypothetical  Expansion for DNO/Unentschieden for if the German player just keeps blitzing East into Asia
A Winter War - A Winter War is a detailed simulation of the Soviet invasion of Finland during the winter of 1939-40.

Most of this was published before computer games was even a thing, and I have never actually seen the entire fifteen games all setup simultaneously. With well over ten thousands counters, maybe double that and more than forty 21"x27" map sheets this remains the largest war game ever published.  You have to be a sado-masochist to even play this game. Ummm... Just playing the first two, it would take us three days just to setup Drang Nach Osten, and we'd play at least four hours a day (and more on the weekends) for two weeks, and that was just to play the first game.   So yes, I played HOI2, and liked it, ...before the age of computers.


Rich Banner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Banner

Frank Chadwick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Chadwick

Frank Chadwicks' Website
http://www.heliograph.com/

Europa, The Board Wargame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(wargame) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(wargame))

Historical Military Services Website (Archived, not active since 2016)
https://web.archive.org/web/20100801035929/http://hmsgrd.com/wordpress/?page_id=10

Board Game Geek link to the Europa Series
https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/The_Europa_Series#
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Anon Adderlan on February 14, 2021, 10:05:13 AM
Oh hi Zak, remember when I responded to your blog post on detoxing communities (https://archive.is/ObHwC) with this...

Quote
So Anna Kreider ends her blog by adopting a harmful stereotype and literally crying for sympathy, and the Fred vs. Cam link demonstrates those people will simply endorse anything said by those they like with no consideration for what's actually said. No wonder lists like #Games4Her and #Orangelist are a thing.

This 'community' shit has gotten way too complex for me. All I know are two things:

Guilt by association is destroying every community I thought I was a part of. I still can't get over how Avery Alder was abandoned by so called 'allies' who would rather punish Mark Diaz Truman and determine where it's acceptable for transwomen to seek support, over less than a page of work which neither furthers nor endorses the harm they claim he caused. Yet they still use KickStarter, which benefits Mark more. So much for ethical consistency.

And (Endorsing) Libel is no more Harassment than Sexual Harassment is Rape, or Disagreement a Mortal Threat, and I've never seen these equivalences used for any other purpose than to distort the truth. The problem isn't how the specific words are defined either, but in treating the concepts as identical. You spend a lot of words defining 'harassment' in order to call what you face harassment, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to overplay your hand like this when the people you're dealing with are being so obviously awful.

So just to be clear, do you consider false statements regarding your character posted publicly to be harassment?

...and how you responded to my post (after deleting it) with this (https://archive.is/ObHwC#selection-3879.1-3879.17)...

Quote
First: Saying you can't follow just means you should ask.

Second: You, assuming you are the "Anon Adderlan" that appears elsewhere you endorsed Fred Hicks' share of the smear article which said Zak Smith--the guy who plays D&D every week with a group that's basically only bi trans and gay women and WOC is trying to keep everyone who isn't a cishet white man out of gaming.

The article and the reasons it's an obvious smear are described here: http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-dungeons-and-dragons-is-totally-not.html

You endorsing it is here: http://plus.google.com/u/0/+FredHicks/posts/SJHZ8Jc5SoW

..which seems out of character for you (assuming it's the same anon adderlan) so I'm all ears if you have some excuse and are going to remove your endorsement.

As for you
-
-
-
You need to address these points and not lie in the comments (I erased your comment as it contained false assertions-you are not watching an attempt to distort the truth) in order to be able to be having a conversation here.

And again: if you would like to redefine "harassment" to include only the kinds of harassment you consider serious then you need to state clearly what you think that definition is.

Calling both two different things both "harassment" is no more an attempt to make them equivalent than calling both murder and vandalism "crime".

As for your question: which specific statements regarding my "character" are you referring to---quote them?

...anyway, since you're already here I figure I'd take the opportunity to address this off my bucket list.

First: Asking wouldn't help me 'follow' because these community standards are capricious, arbitrary, and impossible to intentionally follow. They're designed exclusively to give those responsible for enforcement power.

Second: Seems out of character for you to delete evidence too. As for what I was endorsing, using quotes from Fred himself:

Quote
"no matter how monstrous people appear on the Internet, there are still humans sitting there behind that wall of pixels."

Good to remember.

Quote
"in matters involving folks' upsettedness over D&D, there is so much anger raised on all sides that if anyone tries to take a moderate position on any part of it out loud (instead of silently), they're deemed the enemy."

Completely true.

Quote
"I've said it before (*despite this article claiming to the contrary*), and I'll say it again (even if it's thrown back at me as it has been previously): I am very, very sorry"

So he apologized, admitted he was wrong, and shared the article specifically to point out its inaccuracy.

But people like you only seem able to treat others as absolutes which is exactly the problem. It's impossible to have rational discourse if you can't endorse something someone says without endorsing everything they say. That's why this election was so divisive. That's why all these 'communities' are falling apart. And as long as you treat people like this you're part of the problem too.

As for you.

You accused me of lying. Please point out exactly what was a lie and why.

If I'm not watching an attempt to distort the truth then prove it instead of further distorting the truth by deleting my comment.

I never attempted to redefine harassment. However you did, which is the whole point of my question.

I never attempted to equivocate between different kinds of harassment.

And the question has nothing to do with specific statements about your character. That's immaterial, which means you're either too stupid to realize that or acting in bad faith, I'll let you pick which. But since you can't seem to see past that, I'll rephrase the question: Do you consider false statements regarding anyone's character posted publicly to be harassment?

Glad we finally found a suitable public forum to address this little misunderstanding. Would've emailed you, but then there wouldn't be a publicly visible trail of evidence. And I would've #Tweeted, but apparently you have me blocked for liking your #Tweets. Guess endorsement is harassment too.

My bet however is you'll find another excuse not to.

Literally no RPG author I am aware of--certainly not you or I--experienced censorship. I experienced people lying.

If you define "censorship" as a private platform being unwilling to publish your stuff, then:  My cousin has written a book of poems about horses. Print and distribute her book, Pundit, or else you are a censor.

Not taking action to publish is different than taking action to unpublish. You know, like with #DemonCity.

If you use "sjw" unironically I super don't want your help.

Doesn't matter how much you say this they still won't sleep with you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on February 14, 2021, 10:25:20 AM
Quote
First: Asking wouldn't help me 'follow' because these community standards are capricious, arbitrary, and impossible to intentionally follow.

Only if you're talking to a bad actor. The standards of the person you were talking to (me) were and are none of those things.

Quote
Seems out of character for you to delete evidence too.

A record of all your comments on my blog is in my email (available on request) but I always delete misinformation from the public comments because misinformation is bad.

Quote
(Endorsing) _Libel_ is no more Harassment than Sexual Harassment is Rape

Here's the first screechingly loud piece of misinformation you posted: Encouraging someone to post misinformation in order to harm an innocent person is 100% a form of harassment. It's enouraging someone to break the law to harm an innocent. If that's not harassment, nothing is.

Quote
So he apologized, admitted he was wrong, and shared the article specifically to point out its inaccuracy.

Fred Hicks did not do that. He did not apologize, he didn't claim to be sharing the article "specifically to point out its inaccuracy".

If Fred Hicks had apologized to me (or even addressed me directly) it would've been a completely unprecedented red-letter day in RPGland and everyone I knew in games would've sat slack-jawed in amazement.

Quote
Do you consider false statements regarding anyone's character posted publicly to be harassment?

Only if both of these conditions are satisfied:
-The statement is negative,
-The person making the comment didn't do their due dilligence to check if it was true

Step one of any due dilligence is attempt to contact the person you're criticizing.
----

More misinformation from you, from a hatepost you made I think on Reddit:

" refused to answer my questions, any one of which goes against his proclaimed principles."

I never did that: my proclaiemd principles are I follow the rules if you do. If you do something bad-faith like lead with a firs-tstrike personal attack or post misinformation and don't apologize or address it when it's pointed out, then you don't have the right to have your questions answered any more. You give up your right to be treated fairly. Without that detail a bad-faith actor can easily exploit the rules.

"Finally he impersonated someone, or had a friend which did so"

I never did that.

"lied about what I said"

I never did that.

"threw his co-author for Maze of the Blue Medusa under the bus"

This, strictly speaking, is just misleading: it implies I attacked Patrick first, which is not true and easy to google.


-----

If you're saying:
-the misinformation you posted was a mistake and not a lie and
-I said it was a lie
...then I apologize: you posted misinformation that you didn't bother to check--which is exactly as bad as lying. So it's a difference in kind but not severity.

At any rate: until you apologize for trying to put misinformation on the internet, your other comments don't matter because you're not a good faith actor.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on February 14, 2021, 11:41:56 AM
*makes popcorn furiously*

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on February 14, 2021, 05:18:19 PM
Marilyn Manson, who is an actual celebrity has been cancelled for sexual misconduct so Zak who has played D&D with him and wrote about on his blog, should feel the luckiest adult male of the Homo sapiens species alive. That was I would feel in the same situation but I am French and a total nobody. Life is good !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on February 14, 2021, 06:10:00 PM
Marilyn Manson, who is an actual celebrity has been cancelled for sexual misconduct so Zak who has played D&D with him and wrote about on his blog, should feel the luckiest adult male of the Homo sapiens species alive.

I did not play D&D with Marilyn Manson. I attended a wedding a few years ago and, at the wedding, we talked about his D&D history and I wrote about it on my blog because I thought it would be funny. We aren't friends or anything.

This is a pretty good example of how you (and people like you) don't read carefully and then say accusatory-sounding things based on not having read carefully, thus causing problems.

I wouldn't be much of a D&D blogger if I talked to a rock star about playing D&D and didn't even tell readers what class he played. But, more interestingly: Kerry King was very shy, and Dee Snider was very kind.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on February 14, 2021, 09:57:04 PM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Slipshot762 on February 15, 2021, 03:43:30 AM
Leftists: "Harassment is bad, just because jim is a bearded he-bitch in makeup and girly jeans doesn't mean he should be harassed, you people giving him looks every time you pass him in the hall are harassing him and it's NOT ok."

Also Leftists: "Slip, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences (those consequences being harassment which in this case is A-ok!) so when you took that sharpie and wrote "I heart hitler now get your whore ass back in the kitchen" on your shirt, you were out of line...no the looks you got for doing so were not harassment."

Leftists man, not even once.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 14, 2021, 08:26:26 AM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.

I can fucking swear to Ein Soph that I have read Z gloating about playing D&D with Marylin Manson, with the latter using the 3D6 rolled in order to generate à D&D. I do not a fucking clue where it is in the effing internet but The Eternal and His Son being my witnesses, I know that I read this shit written by the silly coward who loves to fuck with everybody’s minds because it is quite funny to this wretched soul. I do enjoy your misery your suffering and I am waiting for a reckoning and your doom. And DO NOT USE THE JEW CARD with myself since some of my forefathers and foremothers had risk their very existence to save some Jew children in Vichy France. You are an insult to true suffering and pain and should start to FUCKING BEHAVE LIKE AN RESPECTABLE AND SENSITIVE ADULT HUMAN !!!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 14, 2021, 08:48:32 AM
…And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself…
What on earth does this even mean? This thread lies dormant for about a month, and you pop back in spouting some kind of word salad about Jews? Are you having some kind of mental health episode? I’m not entirely joking asking you that. You might try to seek some counseling.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Visitor Q on March 14, 2021, 10:26:21 AM
Scratch this. Blog link wasn't correct.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on March 14, 2021, 10:28:51 AM
Who cares... Marilyn Manson is a shitebag.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on March 14, 2021, 10:30:26 AM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.

I can fucking swear to Ein Soph that I have read Z gloating about playing D&D with Marylin Manson, with the latter using the 3D6 rolled in order to generate à D&D. I do not a fucking clue where it is in the effing internet but The Eternal and His Son being my witnesses, I know that I read this shit written by the silly coward who loves to fuck with everybody’s minds because it is quite funny to this wretched soul. I do enjoy your misery your suffering and I am waiting for a reckoning and your doom. And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself since some of my forefathers and foremothers had risk their very existence to save some Jew children in Vichy France. You are an insult to true suffering and pain and should start to FUCKING BEHAVE LIKE AN RESPECTABLE AND SENSITIVE ADULT HUMAN !!!

"Be cool Yolanda"

Here's the blog post.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/07/marilyn-manson-on-d-from-laney-twiggys.html

For reference the Google terms used were.
"I hit it with my axe zak smith marilyn manson"

Yeah that's not a post about me playing D&D with Marilyn Manson and it doesn't even pretend it is. It was a conversation we had about D&D at a mutual friends' wedding.

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Visitor Q on March 14, 2021, 10:31:41 AM
Fair enough I stand corrected. Will remove.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on March 14, 2021, 10:34:26 AM
Fair enough I stand corrected. Will remove.

Thank you ! I appreciate that you changed your mind when presented with new information. I think this is unprecedented in the history of RPG discussion on the internet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Visitor Q on March 14, 2021, 10:50:50 AM
Fair enough I stand corrected. Will remove.

Thank you ! I appreciate that you changed your mind when presented with new information. I think this is unprecedented in the history of RPG discussion on the internet.

These be strange times we're living in.

For the record did you ever interview Marilyn Manson?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on March 14, 2021, 10:52:26 AM
Fair enough I stand corrected. Will remove.

Thank you ! I appreciate that you changed your mind when presented with new information. I think this is unprecedented in the history of RPG discussion on the internet.

These be strange times we're living in.

For the record did you ever interview Marilyn Manson?

If you consider the conversation recorded in that blog post an "interview".
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Visitor Q on March 14, 2021, 12:00:18 PM
Fair enough I stand corrected. Will remove.

Thank you ! I appreciate that you changed your mind when presented with new information. I think this is unprecedented in the history of RPG discussion on the internet.

These be strange times we're living in.

For the record did you ever interview Marilyn Manson?

If you consider the conversation recorded in that blog post an "interview".

In the UK, in my profession, which is very far removed from celebrities admittedly,  yes this would be considered an interview.

Maybe that's where the confusion arose.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 18, 2021, 05:04:54 AM
…And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself…
What on earth does this even mean? This thread lies dormant for about a month, and you pop back in spouting some kind of word salad about Jews? Are you having some kind of mental health episode? I’m not entirely joking asking you that. You might try to seek some counseling.

Have about go fuck yourself ?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 18, 2021, 05:10:56 AM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.

I can fucking swear to Ein Soph that I have read Z gloating about playing D&D with Marylin Manson, with the latter using the 3D6 rolled in order to generate à D&D. I do not a fucking clue where it is in the effing internet but The Eternal and His Son being my witnesses, I know that I read this shit written by the silly coward who loves to fuck with everybody’s minds because it is quite funny to this wretched soul. I do enjoy your misery your suffering and I am waiting for a reckoning and your doom. And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself since some of my forefathers and foremothers had risk their very existence to save some Jew children in Vichy France. You are an insult to true suffering and pain and should start to FUCKING BEHAVE LIKE AN RESPECTABLE AND SENSITIVE ADULT HUMAN !!!

"Be cool Yolanda"

Here's the blog post.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/07/marilyn-manson-on-d-from-laney-twiggys.html

For reference the Google terms used were.
"I hit it with my axe zak smith marilyn manson"

Yeah that's not a post about me playing D&D with Marilyn Manson and it doesn't even pretend it is. It was a conversation we had about D&D at a mutual friends' wedding.

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing.

It is more about me not having found the blog post where you wrote about playing D&D with Marilyn Manson, with him using the hardcore character generation method. But whatever, I know what I saw and meeting Kerry King in LA is not something worse gloating about. I was fucking right : Monday July 28 2014 -Playing D&D with Pornstars blog entry.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on March 18, 2021, 07:51:47 AM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.

I can fucking swear to Ein Soph that I have read Z gloating about playing D&D with Marylin Manson, with the latter using the 3D6 rolled in order to generate à D&D. I do not a fucking clue where it is in the effing internet but The Eternal and His Son being my witnesses, I know that I read this shit written by the silly coward who loves to fuck with everybody’s minds because it is quite funny to this wretched soul. I do enjoy your misery your suffering and I am waiting for a reckoning and your doom. And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself since some of my forefathers and foremothers had risk their very existence to save some Jew children in Vichy France. You are an insult to true suffering and pain and should start to FUCKING BEHAVE LIKE AN RESPECTABLE AND SENSITIVE ADULT HUMAN !!!

"Be cool Yolanda"

Here's the blog post.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/07/marilyn-manson-on-d-from-laney-twiggys.html

For reference the Google terms used were.
"I hit it with my axe zak smith marilyn manson"

Yeah that's not a post about me playing D&D with Marilyn Manson and it doesn't even pretend it is. It was a conversation we had about D&D at a mutual friends' wedding.

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing.

It is more about me not having found the blog post where you wrote about playing D&D with Marilyn Manson, with him using the hardcore character generation method. But whatever, I know what I saw and meeting Kerry King in LA is not something worse gloating about. I was fucking right : Monday July 28 2014 -Playing D&D with Pornstars blog entry.

For the third time in this same thread: we did not play D&D. We just talked about it and I wrote down what he said in my blog.

It's right there in the blog entry.

This may be a reading comprehension issue for you. That is the nicest interpretation.

And meeting Kerry King anywhere is awesome.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 18, 2021, 08:46:46 AM
…And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself…
What on earth does this even mean? This thread lies dormant for about a month, and you pop back in spouting some kind of word salad about Jews? Are you having some kind of mental health episode? I’m not entirely joking asking you that. You might try to seek some counseling.

Have about go fuck yourself ?

I see that you have gone back to your earlier post and have edited it today at 05:06:09 so that it now says:
“…And DO NOT USE THE JEW CARD with myself…”
So that phrase in isolation makes more sense, but rather than acknowledge that you made a mistake in your post you curse at me instead of addressing the point I raised.

Still, I don’t understand (assuming that you’re using the term “Jew card” similar to the phrase “race card”) a few things:
1. Who is using the “Jew card” with you, and how are they doing so?
2. Why do the actions of helping some Jews done by some of your ancestors essentially immunize you from the “Jew card”? Is this some kind of virtue you gain through inherited characteristics?
3. How does anything Jewish come into play with this forum thread?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 18, 2021, 04:31:24 PM
…And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself…
What on earth does this even mean? This thread lies dormant for about a month, and you pop back in spouting some kind of word salad about Jews? Are you having some kind of mental health episode? I’m not entirely joking asking you that. You might try to seek some counseling.

Have about go fuck yourself ?

I see that you have gone back to your earlier post and have edited it today at 05:06:09 so that it now says:
“…And DO NOT USE THE JEW CARD with myself…”
So that phrase in isolation makes more sense, but rather than acknowledge that you made a mistake in your post you curse at me instead of addressing the point I raised.

Still, I don’t understand (assuming that you’re using the term “Jew card” similar to the phrase “race card”) a few things:
1. Who is using the “Jew card” with you, and how are they doing so?
2. Why do the actions of helping some Jews done by some of your ancestors essentially immunize you from the “Jew card”? Is this some kind of virtue you gain through inherited characteristics?
3. How does anything Jewish come into play with this forum thread?

Go fuck yourself with extreme prejudice !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 18, 2021, 04:34:30 PM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.

I can fucking swear to Ein Soph that I have read Z gloating about playing D&D with Marylin Manson, with the latter using the 3D6 rolled in order to generate à D&D. I do not a fucking clue where it is in the effing internet but The Eternal and His Son being my witnesses, I know that I read this shit written by the silly coward who loves to fuck with everybody’s minds because it is quite funny to this wretched soul. I do enjoy your misery your suffering and I am waiting for a reckoning and your doom. And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself since some of my forefathers and foremothers had risk their very existence to save some Jew children in Vichy France. You are an insult to true suffering and pain and should start to FUCKING BEHAVE LIKE AN RESPECTABLE AND SENSITIVE ADULT HUMAN !!!

"Be cool Yolanda"

Here's the blog post.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/07/marilyn-manson-on-d-from-laney-twiggys.html

For reference the Google terms used were.
"I hit it with my axe zak smith marilyn manson"

Yeah that's not a post about me playing D&D with Marilyn Manson and it doesn't even pretend it is. It was a conversation we had about D&D at a mutual friends' wedding.

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing.

It is more about me not having found the blog post where you wrote about playing D&D with Marilyn Manson, with him using the hardcore character generation method. But whatever, I know what I saw and meeting Kerry King in LA is not something worse gloating about. I was fucking right : Monday July 28 2014 -Playing D&D with Pornstars blog entry.

For the third time in this same thread: we did not play D&D. We just talked about it and I wrote down what he said in my blog.

It's right there in the blog entry.

This may be a reading comprehension issue for you. That is the nicest interpretation.

And meeting Kerry King anywhere is awesome.

You are a liar and evil man and plague to any place you choose to insult with you nefarious presence, the block is the pitiful place you belong and do not hesitate to remove yourself for the internet even 4chan is less disgusting that your ugly face !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on March 18, 2021, 04:38:40 PM
Could you be kind enough to provide a direct link to this blog post of yours where you discribed your interactions with Marilyn Manson here, in order to improve my English reading skill, please Zachary Smith ?

Nevermind : it is the blog is Monday July 28 2014. I cannot link since I am on mobile but there it is.

I can fucking swear to Ein Soph that I have read Z gloating about playing D&D with Marylin Manson, with the latter using the 3D6 rolled in order to generate à D&D. I do not a fucking clue where it is in the effing internet but The Eternal and His Son being my witnesses, I know that I read this shit written by the silly coward who loves to fuck with everybody’s minds because it is quite funny to this wretched soul. I do enjoy your misery your suffering and I am waiting for a reckoning and your doom. And DO NOT USE THE JEW with myself since some of my forefathers and foremothers had risk their very existence to save some Jew children in Vichy France. You are an insult to true suffering and pain and should start to FUCKING BEHAVE LIKE AN RESPECTABLE AND SENSITIVE ADULT HUMAN !!!

"Be cool Yolanda"

Here's the blog post.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/07/marilyn-manson-on-d-from-laney-twiggys.html

For reference the Google terms used were.
"I hit it with my axe zak smith marilyn manson"

Yeah that's not a post about me playing D&D with Marilyn Manson and it doesn't even pretend it is. It was a conversation we had about D&D at a mutual friends' wedding.

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing.

It is more about me not having found the blog post where you wrote about playing D&D with Marilyn Manson, with him using the hardcore character generation method. But whatever, I know what I saw and meeting Kerry King in LA is not something worse gloating about. I was fucking right : Monday July 28 2014 -Playing D&D with Pornstars blog entry.

For the third time in this same thread: we did not play D&D. We just talked about it and I wrote down what he said in my blog.

It's right there in the blog entry.

This may be a reading comprehension issue for you. That is the nicest interpretation.

And meeting Kerry King anywhere is awesome.

You are a liar and evil man and plague to any place you choose to insult with you nefarious presence, the block is the pitiful place you belong and do not hesitate to remove yourself for the internet even 4chan is less disgusting that your ugly face !

Say what I lied about.

Quote the lie, say where you found it on the internet and say why it is not true and why you believe I knew that when I said it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 18, 2021, 05:44:19 PM
Does anyone have a clue as to what’s going on with yabaziou? I searched through this thread, and the only prior mention of anything related to Jews prior to his mad raving about a “Jew Card” was a Monty Python reference.

He’s going on like a mentally ill homeless person I’ve come across on occasion, retorting with cuss words rather than anything close to a rational argument or explanation.

Is this what being on tumblr does to you? His sig also says he’s reading Polaris, could I blame his reading that for his incoherence? Is he some AI that escaped a Google lab that’s gone rampant?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on March 18, 2021, 10:23:52 PM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on March 19, 2021, 01:50:03 AM
Does anyone have a clue as to what’s going on with yabaziou? I searched through this thread, and the only prior mention of anything related to Jews prior to his mad raving about a “Jew Card” was a Monty Python reference.

He’s going on like a mentally ill homeless person I’ve come across on occasion, retorting with cuss words rather than anything close to a rational argument or explanation.

Is this what being on tumblr does to you? His sig also says he’s reading Polaris, could I blame his reading that for his incoherence? Is he some AI that escaped a Google lab that’s gone rampant?

At first I thought it was just his problem understanding English and he had misunderstood some comment.

Now I just think he's a nutter who also doesn't happen to speak speak English as his primary language.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on March 19, 2021, 01:51:47 AM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.

That would never be a reason for the use of the banhammer around here, in itself. If it were, we'd have no users :)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Elfdart on March 23, 2021, 12:21:34 AM
That didn't occur. If you know for a fact I did: sign an affadavit to that effect and give it to anyone you think might have legal use of it.

I'd also note that this whole thread--which you yourself necro'ed starts with someone who was forced to defend their claims of alleged "abuse" by me (including things you asked about here) in court admitting they were lying when they were asked to put up or shut up.

I've noticed that media of all kinds will always take the side of the perpetrator in libel/slander/defamation cases. Jesse Ventura comes to mind: after taking Harper Collins to the cleaners, reporters not only sided with the creep who defamed him, but they even regurgitated the creep's lies:



Matt Taibbi is another example. When the Guardian and The Nation. slimed him and he filed suit and forced them to retract, he was and still is made out to be the bad guy. While my hat's off to anyone who drags a liar into court and twists their balls until they cry "UNCLE!", I wonder if it's worth it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on March 23, 2021, 12:24:37 AM
While my hat's off to anyone who drags a liar into court and twists their balls until they cry "UNCLE!", I wonder if it's worth it.

Yes. I will have to do better--and far more--than the people who came before.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on March 23, 2021, 08:54:35 AM
https://thepostmillennial.com/supreme-court-ny-times-project-veritas-disinformation

I may be wrong, but it sure as hell looks like the tides are steadily shifting against people -- and organizations -- that try to blur the line between news, opinion, and smears.

It's one thing to be a rando slapfighting on an Internet forum, but I suspect things are about to get a bit more exciting for people who think they can run around quoting imaginary anonymous sources for whatever line of bullshit they want to run as 'fact'.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 23, 2021, 10:16:56 AM
https://thepostmillennial.com/supreme-court-ny-times-project-veritas-disinformation

I may be wrong, but it sure as hell looks like the tides are steadily shifting against people -- and organizations -- that try to blur the line between news, opinion, and smears.

It's one thing to be a rando slapfighting on an Internet forum, but I suspect things are about to get a bit more exciting for people who think they can run around quoting imaginary anonymous sources for whatever line of bullshit they want to run as 'fact'.
Talking utter bullshit in person among friends is as old as language. Trying to do the same conversations on the internet with no thought to whether what one says is true (The tech companies have encouraged this relaxed view to encourage people to use their services) is a different ball of wax. It’s out there forever for people to look at, and if one’s utter bullshit trends that can cause more harm than the previous in person conversation amongst a handful of people, and is a much bigger target for being able to point to evidence that some bullshit was spread.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 28, 2021, 04:36:38 AM
Does anyone have a clue as to what’s going on with yabaziou? I searched through this thread, and the only prior mention of anything related to Jews prior to his mad raving about a “Jew Card” was a Monty Python reference.

He’s going on like a mentally ill homeless person I’ve come across on occasion, retorting with cuss words rather than anything close to a rational argument or explanation.

Is this what being on tumblr does to you? His sig also says he’s reading Polaris, could I blame his reading that for his incoherence? Is he some AI that escaped a Google lab that’s gone rampant?

At first I thought it was just his problem understanding English and he had misunderstood some comment.

Now I just think he's a nutter who also doesn't happen to speak speak English as his primary language.

That is rich from a little and pitiful man like yourself, Mistwell !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 28, 2021, 04:41:13 AM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.

Congratulations, you are an utter moron, and a prime candidate for the ignore list with your stupid buddy Mistwell. The Pundit utterly despises Zak and he will be gone before I will, like you two little nobodies.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 28, 2021, 08:41:06 AM
Does anyone have a clue as to what’s going on with yabaziou? I searched through this thread, and the only prior mention of anything related to Jews prior to his mad raving about a “Jew Card” was a Monty Python reference.

He’s going on like a mentally ill homeless person I’ve come across on occasion, retorting with cuss words rather than anything close to a rational argument or explanation.

Is this what being on tumblr does to you? His sig also says he’s reading Polaris, could I blame his reading that for his incoherence? Is he some AI that escaped a Google lab that’s gone rampant?

I am a man disgusted by your tolerance of this vile and abject man that Zak S is. And the ignore list is now your new home, you little and pitiful man !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 28, 2021, 12:14:17 PM
Does anyone have a clue as to what’s going on with yabaziou? I searched through this thread, and the only prior mention of anything related to Jews prior to his mad raving about a “Jew Card” was a Monty Python reference.

He’s going on like a mentally ill homeless person I’ve come across on occasion, retorting with cuss words rather than anything close to a rational argument or explanation.

Is this what being on tumblr does to you? His sig also says he’s reading Polaris, could I blame his reading that for his incoherence? Is he some AI that escaped a Google lab that’s gone rampant?

I am a man disgusted by your tolerance of this vile and abject man that Zak S is. And the ignore list is now your new human, you little and pitiful man !
If by ‘tolerance’ you mean that I haven’t piled on in this thread to attack Zak? I don’t know the details of the matters at hand to attack Zak. I don’t see that I’ve defended him either. I did note that treating statements one puts to the internet with the same sense of casualness that one might bullshit with friends in person at the gaming table is a mistake, but that’s not defending Zak. Zak comes across to me as being a bit of a jerk, but most of the internet is populated by jerks.

Regardless, my ‘tolerance’ of Zak, as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with why you decided to bring Jews into the discussion here. That’s on you, and you have yet to explain why you decided to do so. To bring up Jews in a discussion that has nothing to do with Jews seems anti-Semitic. No, I don’t care if you had parents who helped Jews during WWII. You don’t get credit for their good deeds.

I suspect you respond to me with non-sequiturs because you had no valid reasons for bringing Jews into this discussion. You’re trying to avoid taking responsibility for your anti-Semitic rant about “Jew cards” because there is no reason Jews should have been a topic of this discussion.

So, one more time, yabaziou, why did you use the term ‘Jew card’ in this discussion, and how does that matter to this discussion?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2021, 01:20:27 PM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.

Congratulations, you are an utter moron, and a prime candidate for the ignore list with your stupid buddy Mistwell. The Pundit utterly despises Zak and he will be gone before I will, like you two little nobodies.
Dude, embrace the power of "and."  Like, Zach can be a total douche and you can also be an unmitigated ass.  Both are possible at the same time...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 28, 2021, 04:09:35 PM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.


I am not your dude, you feeble insect and you suck so hard that you will join the others ennemies of what is just and good in the ignore list. Good riddance, you foverer nobody !

Congratulations, you are an utter moron, and a prime candidate for the ignore list with your stupid buddy Mistwell. The Pundit utterly despises Zak and he will be gone before I will, like you two little nobodies.
Dude, embrace the power of "and."  Like, Zach can be a total douche and you can also be an unmitigated ass.  Both are possible at the same time...

Embrace the power of the ignore list ! You are too stupid to be a Zak bot !
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Libramarian on March 28, 2021, 06:10:23 PM
Regardless, my ‘tolerance’ of Zak, as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with why you decided to bring Jews into the discussion here. That’s on you, and you have yet to explain why you decided to do so. To bring up Jews in a discussion that has nothing to do with Jews seems anti-Semitic. No, I don’t care if you had parents who helped Jews during WWII. You don’t get credit for their good deeds.

I suspect you respond to me with non-sequiturs because you had no valid reasons for bringing Jews into this discussion. You’re trying to avoid taking responsibility for your anti-Semitic rant about “Jew cards” because there is no reason Jews should have been a topic of this discussion.

So, one more time, yabaziou, why did you use the term ‘Jew card’ in this discussion, and how does that matter to this discussion?
Well, Zak is a Jew...whose behavior and alleged behavior does (coincidentally) exemplify many anti-Semitic canards.

Not to suggest that these stereotypes are less than abhorrent or have any general validity.

I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on March 28, 2021, 07:03:59 PM
given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Would you mind unpacking that one for us so that we can understand your position better.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Libramarian on March 28, 2021, 07:08:00 PM
given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Would you mind unpacking that one for us so that we can understand your position better.
I'll leave that undefended as a self-evident observation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Arkansan on March 28, 2021, 08:17:03 PM
given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Would you mind unpacking that one for us so that we can understand your position better.
I'll leave that undefended as a self-evident observation.

It's not self evident, it's dumb ass statement that should earn you copious ridicule.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on March 28, 2021, 08:44:11 PM
given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Would you mind unpacking that one for us so that we can understand your position better.

Greetings!

Hey there, Jeff!

Yeah, the OSR's overlap with the "Dreaded ALT-Right"...LOL.

You just know that he drinks the Kool-Aid, huh? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Almost_Useless on March 28, 2021, 09:02:20 PM
I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Ya, it's almost like the OSR isn't actually full of racists.  Who knew?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on March 28, 2021, 09:50:10 PM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.

Congratulations, you are an utter moron, and a prime candidate for the ignore list with your stupid buddy Mistwell. The Pundit utterly despises Zak and he will be gone before I will, like you two little nobodies.
Drugs are bad for you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on March 28, 2021, 10:43:13 PM
given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Would you mind unpacking that one for us so that we can understand your position better.
I'll leave that undefended as a self-evident observation.

It's not self evident, it's dumb ass statement that should earn you copious ridicule.


given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Would you mind unpacking that one for us so that we can understand your position better.

Greetings!

Hey there, Jeff!

Yeah, the OSR's overlap with the "Dreaded ALT-Right"...LOL.

You just know that he drinks the Kool-Aid, huh? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, I got that Libramarian is suggesting that the OSR is full of alt-rights and therefore racists, but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt here.  My mistake.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 28, 2021, 10:44:46 PM
I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Ya, it's almost like the OSR isn't actually full of racists.  Who knew?

Any significant group of people are going to have some members that are bigots. The OSR has some, but I guarantee you so do the other sectors that of society. I have a sister who’s very Woke, is all on board with “The Future is Female”, “Transwomen are Women”, BLM, BDS, etc, and she is virulently anti-Semitic. Similar to yabaziou, at the most tenuous connection to the Jewish community like a stark raving mad lunatic she’ll start going on about Jewish conspiracies, and how they’re behind many of the wars (doesn’t matter that the wars are on different continents than where Israel is involved, it’s somehow in her mind the Jews pushing the wars) in the world to control it, etc.

When someone like Libramarian tries to frame the existence of racists/anti-Semites into a particular group that they oppose I think they’re trying to ignore the stink in their own house.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Shasarak on March 28, 2021, 11:31:52 PM
I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Given the degree of over lap between the OSR and alt-right it does not surprise me that you have never seen anyone bring up his Jewishness.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on March 28, 2021, 11:52:18 PM
Yeah, I'd generally expect the left to be antisemetic not the right.  It goes with the anti business anti capitalism point of view.  Also, the right generally supports Israel and the left generally doesn't.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: yabaziou on March 29, 2021, 04:35:51 AM
Regardless, my ‘tolerance’ of Zak, as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with why you decided to bring Jews into the discussion here. That’s on you, and you have yet to explain why you decided to do so. To bring up Jews in a discussion that has nothing to do with Jews seems anti-Semitic. No, I don’t care if you had parents who helped Jews during WWII. You don’t get credit for their good deeds.

I suspect you respond to me with non-sequiturs because you had no valid reasons for bringing Jews into this discussion. You’re trying to avoid taking responsibility for your anti-Semitic rant about “Jew cards” because there is no reason Jews should have been a topic of this discussion.

So, one more time, yabaziou, why did you use the term ‘Jew card’ in this discussion, and how does that matter to this discussion?
Well, Zak is a Jew...whose behavior and alleged behavior does (coincidentally) exemplify many anti-Semitic canards.

Not to suggest that these stereotypes are less than abhorrent or have any general validity.

I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Fuck me ! Zak has weaponized his jew identity (he is not a Jew since his mother is not and I am pretty he is a nihilist anarchist, so here goes his excuse of hating me makes you anti-Semitic) because he is a douchebag who is full of hubris and contempt for his lesser (read everybody who cannot help to get money or sex).

The Alt-Right phenomenon barely exists in France and I am sadly surprised by the fact that everybody is not using the opportunity of Zak’s misfortune to give him hell for his atrocious behavior before the whole Mandy debacle.

And having no fuck to give is right thing to do since he had, at numerous occasions, said he does not give a thing about people’s feelings, wellbeing and so on and so forth.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 29, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Regardless, my ‘tolerance’ of Zak, as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with why you decided to bring Jews into the discussion here. That’s on you, and you have yet to explain why you decided to do so. To bring up Jews in a discussion that has nothing to do with Jews seems anti-Semitic. No, I don’t care if you had parents who helped Jews during WWII. You don’t get credit for their good deeds.

I suspect you respond to me with non-sequiturs because you had no valid reasons for bringing Jews into this discussion. You’re trying to avoid taking responsibility for your anti-Semitic rant about “Jew cards” because there is no reason Jews should have been a topic of this discussion.

So, one more time, yabaziou, why did you use the term ‘Jew card’ in this discussion, and how does that matter to this discussion?
Well, Zak is a Jew...whose behavior and alleged behavior does (coincidentally) exemplify many anti-Semitic canards.

Not to suggest that these stereotypes are less than abhorrent or have any general validity.

I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Fuck me ! Zak has weaponized his jew identity (he is not a Jew since his mother is not and I am pretty he is a nihilist anarchist, so here goes his excuse of hating me makes you anti-Semitic) because he is a douchebag who is full of hubris and contempt for his lesser (read everybody who cannot help to get money or sex).

The Alt-Right phenomenon barely exists in France and I am sadly surprised by the fact that everybody is not using the opportunity of Zak’s misfortune to give him hell for his atrocious behavior before the whole Mandy debacle.

And having no fuck to give is right thing to do since he had, at numerous occasions, said he does not give a thing about people’s feelings, wellbeing and so on and so forth.

Yabaziou, where and how has Zak “weaponized” his Jewish identity? I haven’t seen it in this thread, and I don’t recall seeing it elsewhere. I don’t follow Zak specifically as a subject matter, but come across him on rpg boards so I might have missed something. From what I see you’ve brought in the topic of Jews into this thread from practically nowhere, and which comes across as lunatic raving.

I don’t know that Zak is or isn’t Jewish. I’ve not seen him speak to that question himself. I’ve only seen random people on the internet make that claim, which leaves me still not knowing if Zak is Jewish. I don’t care whether or not Zak is Jewish, but I do care when I see someone start ranting about Jews for apparently no valid justification (I’m not sure what a valid justification would be.) on a forum I use. I don’t think anyone other than Zak can say whether or not he is Jewish, despite the claim you made about his mother. Making claims about someone else’s mother seems a bit creepy. Do you know Zak’s family well enough personally to make such a claim? Nor do I think that’s a question he should have to answer to the world on the internet.

Zak may be a jerk, but why are we obligated to use this as an opportunity to give him hell due to statements by Mandy that he treated her horribly? Divorces can be horribly messy affairs, and there is only a small group of people who were actually witnesses to what was going on, whatever that was. It seems reasonable (and nothing you should be surprised by) that many people have decided to not devote time and energy to the strife between Zak and Mandy. Some may be following this very thread because it is a view into how the law has been used in regards to libel, slander, defamation, etc. in various countries. When I first heard about these suits I gave them almost no chance of being successful, but he’s won at least one, and the others seem to be still progressing without being thrown out yet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: hedgehobbit on March 29, 2021, 10:17:16 AM
The Alt-Right phenomenon barely exists in France

The "Alt-Right phenomenon" barely exists in the US either.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on March 29, 2021, 10:20:19 AM
The Alt-Right phenomenon barely exists in France

The "Alt-Right phenomenon" barely exists in the US either.
Pretty much. The 'alt-right' moniker is much like 'racist' or in an earlier day and age, 'witch'. Hang it on someone you don't like to damage them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on March 29, 2021, 05:14:54 PM
*makes more popcorn*

Honestly, it's only a matter of time before Pundit banhammers him for being a retard.

Congratulations, you are an utter moron, and a prime candidate for the ignore list with your stupid buddy Mistwell. The Pundit utterly despises Zak and he will be gone before I will, like you two little nobodies.
Drugs are bad for you.

To be fair, some drugs might be good for him. He might be just off his meds.

Also, apparently you and I are buddies now.

I'll take it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on March 29, 2021, 05:20:58 PM
Regardless, my ‘tolerance’ of Zak, as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with why you decided to bring Jews into the discussion here. That’s on you, and you have yet to explain why you decided to do so. To bring up Jews in a discussion that has nothing to do with Jews seems anti-Semitic. No, I don’t care if you had parents who helped Jews during WWII. You don’t get credit for their good deeds.

I suspect you respond to me with non-sequiturs because you had no valid reasons for bringing Jews into this discussion. You’re trying to avoid taking responsibility for your anti-Semitic rant about “Jew cards” because there is no reason Jews should have been a topic of this discussion.

So, one more time, yabaziou, why did you use the term ‘Jew card’ in this discussion, and how does that matter to this discussion?
Well, Zak is a Jew...whose behavior and alleged behavior does (coincidentally) exemplify many anti-Semitic canards.

Not to suggest that these stereotypes are less than abhorrent or have any general validity.

I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

Fuck me ! Zak has weaponized his jew identity (he is not a Jew since his mother is not and I am pretty he is a nihilist anarchist, so here goes his excuse of hating me makes you anti-Semitic) because he is a douchebag who is full of hubris and contempt for his lesser (read everybody who cannot help to get money or sex).

The Alt-Right phenomenon barely exists in France and I am sadly surprised by the fact that everybody is not using the opportunity of Zak’s misfortune to give him hell for his atrocious behavior before the whole Mandy debacle.

And having no fuck to give is right thing to do since he had, at numerous occasions, said he does not give a thing about people’s feelings, wellbeing and so on and so forth.

You have single handedly brought almost this entire message board to the defense of Zak, despite many here not being particularly fond of him, with your idiotic anti-semitic insane ranting. Congratulations, you've done the near impossible in bringing the message board together.

I am not friends with Zak personally and I don't know him personal, but I've followed his posts here and elsewhere for at least a decade. And I have not one time ever seen him mention his religion, his heritage, his culture, or anything relating to Judaism. For you to bring it up, and in the context of you trying to bash him, makes it pretty damn clear you're the bigot in the room. Maybe ask yourself why you thought that issue was relevant to this discussion?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: wmarshal on March 29, 2021, 05:27:49 PM
You have single handedly brought almost this entire message board to the defense of Zak, despite many here not being particularly fond of him, with your idiotic anti-semitic insane ranting. Congratulations, you've done the near impossible in bringing the message board together.
My God, you’re right! This is surely a sign that the end times are upon us!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: robh on March 30, 2021, 06:43:15 AM
You have single handedly brought almost this entire message board to the defense of Zak, despite many here not being particularly fond of him, with your idiotic anti-semitic insane ranting. Congratulations, you've done the near impossible in bringing the message board together.
My God, you’re right! This is surely a sign that the end times are upon us!

LOL

Does that mean that we can actually start discussing his game design again?  He was/is capable of putting out some really good and challenging work.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on March 30, 2021, 06:45:32 AM


Does that mean that we can actually start discussing his game design again?  He was/is capable of putting out some really good and challenging work.

Cool, I'll start.

Where's Demon City?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: robh on March 30, 2021, 09:00:32 AM


Does that mean that we can actually start discussing his game design again?  He was/is capable of putting out some really good and challenging work.

Cool, I'll start.

Where's Demon City?


<looks for a "we are still waiting patiently" emoji>
I will probably never get to play it with my group, but it should be a wonderful looking book.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on March 30, 2021, 09:03:27 AM


Does that mean that we can actually start discussing his game design again?  He was/is capable of putting out some really good and challenging work.

Cool, I'll start.

Where's Demon City?


<looks for a "we are still waiting patiently" emoji>
I will probably never get to play it with my group, but it should be a wonderful looking book.

Well, I'm waiting but not patiently. It was supposed to be done in 2019! To be fair, it seems that its slow on the publishers side.

That said... It will be a nice looking book for sure.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Snowman0147 on March 30, 2021, 10:05:45 AM
Isn't light enough to play?  Like who ever has the higher stat rolls 2d10 instead of 1d10 with the highest result wins.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on March 30, 2021, 10:08:57 PM
Regardless, my ‘tolerance’ of Zak, as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with why you decided to bring Jews into the discussion here. That’s on you, and you have yet to explain why you decided to do so. To bring up Jews in a discussion that has nothing to do with Jews seems anti-Semitic. No, I don’t care if you had parents who helped Jews during WWII. You don’t get credit for their good deeds.

I suspect you respond to me with non-sequiturs because you had no valid reasons for bringing Jews into this discussion. You’re trying to avoid taking responsibility for your anti-Semitic rant about “Jew cards” because there is no reason Jews should have been a topic of this discussion.

So, one more time, yabaziou, why did you use the term ‘Jew card’ in this discussion, and how does that matter to this discussion?
Well, Zak is a Jew...whose behavior and alleged behavior does (coincidentally) exemplify many anti-Semitic canards.

Not to suggest that these stereotypes are less than abhorrent or have any general validity.

I'm just actually a bit surprised this is the first time I've seen his Jewishness mentioned by a hater, given the degree of overlap between OSR and alt-right.

The asshat is surprized nobody had mentioned Zak being a Jew (I didn't even fucking knew nor care one way or the other) by a hater because the OSR has a huge (in his addled mind) with the Alt-Right (a term I bet the asshat can't adecuatelly define).

But the mere fact that nobody had mentioned it, and that many that don't like Zak jumped down the troath of the nutso hater should disprove his baseless asertion.

I'll wait comfortably seated for the asshat to:

1.- Define Alt-Right in a way that's acurate.

2.- Provide evidence of the claimed overlap between the OSR and the Alt-Right.

3.- Failing that to kindly fuck of to TBP which I believe is it's natural habitat.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 31, 2021, 12:08:21 AM
(https://i.giphy.com/media/13871fiv9kBfkQ/giphy.webp)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Bunch on May 04, 2021, 10:48:47 AM
Well that lawsuit when down in flames.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on May 04, 2021, 12:03:53 PM
Well that lawsuit when down in flames.

You mean the part where the judge dismissed the lawsuit? Twice?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on May 04, 2021, 12:06:32 PM
Well that lawsuit when down in flames.

Oh not at all, that's not how these things work.

If the lower court doesn't accept our next motion on the case it'll be in appellate court for at least a year, probably a year and a half.

Whatever Something Awful goon you get your legal news from really should check with a lawyer before talking about cases online.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 04, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
Out of curiosity, on what grounds was the suit dismissed?

I'm kinda following the Rebekah Jones vs Christina Pushaw case as well and doing some comparisons.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on May 04, 2021, 01:34:25 PM
Out of curiosity, on what grounds was the suit dismissed?


Paperwork's not in yet, but there will be a long paperwork trail you can follow over the coming year as the case continues.

It's better to get the info straight from that when it happens then to ask anyone involved, even me.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Vampire Rabbit on August 05, 2022, 07:26:18 AM
Out of curiosity, on what grounds was the suit dismissed?

I'm kinda following the Rebekah Jones vs Christina Pushaw case as well and doing some comparisons.

Zak has posted some updates that explains all of this at https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/ and http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 05, 2022, 07:28:48 AM
thread necro, also fuck Zak
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 05, 2022, 07:53:49 AM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on August 05, 2022, 08:20:35 AM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?

Well, you are kinda cute......
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 05, 2022, 09:04:54 AM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?

i heard the accusations, either you can refute them or cope with me insulting you
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 05, 2022, 09:18:39 AM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 05, 2022, 09:50:44 AM
about the only time I side with Tubesock
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on August 05, 2022, 10:08:56 AM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.
Oh look, our resident troll is suddenly concerned about tone now. Bahahaha.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 11:03:25 AM
Oh look, our resident troll is suddenly concerned about tone now. Bahahaha.

Sadly, on this point he is correct.   A broken clock is right twice a day and whathaveyou.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 11:08:13 AM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.

I have never understood arrogant, condescending game designers.  They are small fish in a small pond and 99% of the world doesn't know or care who they are.

I love it when condescending assholes get what's coming to them (GMS).  Has that guy ever released Far West or did he just run off with people's money.  I almost backed that but because he is an asshat I didn't.  Thank god I didn't.

Bullies do so because they are insecure and it makes them feel better about themselves by putting people down.

I have seen some of the harassment that Zak has done.  I won't badmouth him, I just will never buy his products and suggest to gamer friends I know not to buy them either.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 05, 2022, 11:12:18 AM
about the only time I side with Tubesock

I'm a uniter, not a divider.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 05, 2022, 12:20:33 PM
I have never understood arrogant, condescending game designers.  They are small fish in a small pond and 99% of the world doesn't know or care who they are.

That's very true... They are utter nobodies that pretend to be somebody. I've no time for those types of cretins.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 05, 2022, 01:18:22 PM
To sum up the evidence on that page:

Zach's ex said she doesn't have a mental illness, under oath;

Zach obtained clear proof she was diagnosed with a serious mental illness even before they met, was treated for that mental illness, was aware she had it and wrote about it, and actively ignored it;

Other members of her family were aware she was diagnosed with the mental illness and were concerned for her;

At least one family member was concerned people who didn't really know her at the time this was all going on, who knew her on the Internet, were feeding into her mental illness;

One known pattern of people with this mental illness is they tend to turn on the people they're in a relationship with.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: zircher on August 05, 2022, 02:59:00 PM
I love it when condescending assholes get what's coming to them (GMS).  Has that guy ever released Far West or did he just run off with people's money. ...
He has released a chapter here and there for Far West, but no full product of course.  It should be done within the decade at the current pace.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 05, 2022, 03:08:53 PM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?

i heard the accusations, either you can refute them or cope with me insulting you

1. They are comprehensively refuted: https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-statement.html

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2022/07/three-hours-fifty-eight-minutes-and.html

https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2020/04/i-got-public-apology-and-cash.html

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser anyway. Any other option and you might as well say you’re a child molester until you prove otherwise.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 03:09:29 PM
He has released a chapter here and there for Far West, but no full product of course.  It should be done within the decade at the current pace.

Hasn't it already been 10 years since the kickstarter was run?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 05, 2022, 03:10:09 PM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.

You're lying, of course. If you weren't you'd have an example of me:

1. manipulating someone and

2. concern trolling

...you don't.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 05, 2022, 03:11:07 PM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.

I have never understood arrogant, condescending game designers.  They are small fish in a small pond and 99% of the world doesn't know or care who they are.

I love it when condescending assholes get what's coming to them (GMS).  Has that guy ever released Far West or did he just run off with people's money.  I almost backed that but because he is an asshat I didn't.  Thank god I didn't.

Bullies do so because they are insecure and it makes them feel better about themselves by putting people down.

I have seen some of the harassment that Zak has done.  I won't badmouth him, I just will never buy his products and suggest to gamer friends I know not to buy them either.

You just did "badmouth" me: you lied about me committing harassment.

If you've "seen" it: post it.

Or else admit you're lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: zircher on August 05, 2022, 03:17:20 PM
Hasn't it already been 10 years since the kickstarter was run?
Yep, successfully funded on Aug 25 2011.  As of Feb 01 2022, it was theoretically handed off to another person for layout.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 03:20:17 PM
Yep, successfully funded on Aug 25 2011.  As of Feb 01 2022, it was theoretically handed off to another person for layout.

So Almost 11 years.   I know some people had to go to the Attorney General of his state in order to get refunds.  I don't hear as much from him so maybe the whole situation has humbled him  But then again I doubt it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: zircher on August 05, 2022, 03:38:31 PM
It is a bit funny/sad that the gaming group that I wanted to originally run Far West for is now defunct.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 03:45:29 PM
It is a bit funny/sad that the gaming group that I wanted to originally run Far West for is now defunct.

Yeah, that is sad.  Of course it would probably be easy to recreate the setting for Far West with a generic system.  It would be funny if someone created a far west game (with the serial numbers filed off) and got it done and out before GMS does.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Garry G on August 05, 2022, 03:49:06 PM
It is a bit funny/sad that the gaming group that I wanted to originally run Far West for is now defunct.

Yeah, that is sad.  Of course it would probably be easy to recreate the setting for Far West with a generic system.  It would be funny if someone created a far west game (with the serial numbers filed off) and got it done and out before GMS does.

Near West?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 03:52:16 PM

Near West?

Yeah.  Near west or almost west.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: zircher on August 05, 2022, 04:09:06 PM
Near West?
Yeah.  Near west or almost west.
At this stage in the game, I can only laugh.  So, I would go with 'Adam West'.  Hey, if David Carradine can pull it off, why not Adam West in yellow face?  Sure, it might play more like Blazing Saddles, but is that a bad thing?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 05, 2022, 04:24:25 PM
At this stage in the game, I can only laugh.  So, I would go with 'Adam West'.  Hey, if David Carradine can pull it off, why not Adam West in yellow face?  Sure, it might play more like Blazing Saddles, but is that a bad thing?

Just looked at GMS's twitter.  He posted 23 hours ago that Far West is JUST about to go out the door.  ::)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 05, 2022, 04:37:22 PM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?

i heard the accusations, either you can refute them or cope with me insulting you

1. They are comprehensively refuted: https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-statement.html

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2022/07/three-hours-fifty-eight-minutes-and.html

https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2020/04/i-got-public-apology-and-cash.html

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser anyway. Any other option and you might as well say you’re a child molester until you prove otherwise.

1. I read it, and as far as I know you're not guilty in my eyes.
2. fuck you, don't care
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 05, 2022, 04:46:04 PM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.

You're lying, of course. If you weren't you'd have an example of me:

1. manipulating someone and

2. concern trolling

...you don't.

Sorry, I don't have time to post your entire internet history since forever.

The important thing here is that your RPG career has been destroyed. And no one can take that away from me.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 05, 2022, 04:47:17 PM
I don't have the time or energy to look into this in detail as of now. Maybe later I'll do it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 05, 2022, 04:58:59 PM
It is a bit funny/sad that the gaming group that I wanted to originally run Far West for is now defunct.

Yeah, that is sad.  Of course it would probably be easy to recreate the setting for Far West with a generic system.  It would be funny if someone created a far west game (with the serial numbers filed off) and got it done and out before GMS does.

I own the Spanish edition. Besides being d% I see nothing special about it. Unless there's another rpg called Far West?

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 06, 2022, 07:32:37 AM
Something occurred to me recently, as people were discussing the Satine Phoenix/Jamison Stone thing. It's crazy how much Zak sounds like Jamison. Same condescending, manipulative tone. Same concern trolling/crybullying of people who call them on their shit.

You're lying, of course. If you weren't you'd have an example of me:

1. manipulating someone and

2. concern trolling

...you don't.

Sorry, I don't have time to post your entire internet history since forever.


Oh, so you have no proof and are lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 06, 2022, 07:33:36 AM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?

i heard the accusations, either you can refute them or cope with me insulting you

1. They are comprehensively refuted: https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-statement.html

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2022/07/three-hours-fifty-eight-minutes-and.html

https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2020/04/i-got-public-apology-and-cash.html

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser anyway. Any other option and you might as well say you’re a child molester until you prove otherwise.

1. I read it, and as far as I know you're not guilty in my eyes.
2. fuck you, don't care

Im not guilty period. Whether you care or not is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Svenhelgrim on August 06, 2022, 08:48:12 AM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 06, 2022, 09:28:30 AM
thread necro, also fuck Zak

Why?

i heard the accusations, either you can refute them or cope with me insulting you

1. They are comprehensively refuted: https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-statement.html

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2022/07/three-hours-fifty-eight-minutes-and.html

https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2020/04/i-got-public-apology-and-cash.html

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser anyway. Any other option and you might as well say you’re a child molester until you prove otherwise.

1. I read it, and as far as I know you're not guilty in my eyes.
2. fuck you, don't care

Im not guilty period. Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

*I'm
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Svenhelgrim on August 06, 2022, 09:58:44 AM

1. I read it, and as far as I know you're not guilty in my eyes.
2. fuck you, don't care

Im not guilty period. Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

*I'm

I’ll bet Zak has written more books than you have.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 06, 2022, 11:42:01 AM

1. I read it, and as far as I know you're not guilty in my eyes.
2. fuck you, don't care

Im not guilty period. Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

*I'm

I’ll bet Zak has written more books than you have.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/724/111/706.jpg)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Vampire Rabbit on August 06, 2022, 02:49:28 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on August 06, 2022, 03:07:29 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 06, 2022, 05:32:24 PM
I own the Spanish edition. Besides being d% I see nothing special about it. Unless there's another rpg called Far West?

How the hell did he get the Spanish version done but not the English version done?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 06, 2022, 05:39:45 PM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The problem is that using the word "Cancelled" is simply using the word incorrectly.  People aren't being cancelled, people who behave badly are facing the consequences of their actions.

To be clear, the above is not being directed at anyone, I am just getting annoyed at how the word is being misused.

The problem with the whole thing is while I applaud bad people getting what's due to them (Harvey Weinstein), I truly am disgusted as the way a lot of the idiots (including those over at the big purple) are seeing that someone gets accused and then immediately stop buying their stuff.

That is innocent until proven guilty which is bullshit.  It should be up to a court to decide whether the person is guilty or not and then igo from there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: VengerSatanis on August 06, 2022, 05:58:37 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes! 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 06, 2022, 06:33:45 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Translation:

"I said something that wasn't true, Zak called me out for it. I have no proof, so I have decided to claim he has a bunch of personality problems. If you ask me for proof of those, I will dodge it and claim you have them, too. This is a normal way of acting for me."

You would never have supported me, Venger, you are just like the people who did this in every way that matters. Politics or no: if you lie and can't even apologize or admit it, you're part of the same problem.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on August 06, 2022, 06:34:35 PM
I own the Spanish edition. Besides being d% I see nothing special about it. Unless there's another rpg called Far West?

How the hell did he get the Spanish version done but not the English version done?

It's not, it's a totally different game, nothing to do with 10-year Loser Award Winner GMS.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 06, 2022, 08:23:11 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Ozzy Osbourne said it best, in The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 2:

"You meet a lot of people on the way up... Don't fuck them, because you'll meet them on the way down, too."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 06, 2022, 08:54:34 PM
dp
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 06, 2022, 08:55:09 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Well said.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 06, 2022, 09:40:03 PM
I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness. 

He said, on a message board run by the self-described "The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords", the RPG Pundit himself.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 06, 2022, 09:48:15 PM
I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness. 

He said, on a message board run by the self-described "The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords", the RPG Pundit himself.

It wasn't his moniker... Pundit just adopted it after the fact if you want to get technical about it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 06, 2022, 10:00:42 PM
I own the Spanish edition. Besides being d% I see nothing special about it. Unless there's another rpg called Far West?

How the hell did he get the Spanish version done but not the English version done?

It's not, it's a totally different game, nothing to do with 10-year Loser Award Winner GMS.

The Spanish edition is way older than 10 years (1992), I thought the Loser Award Winner GMS was making a second edition of it and that's why there was such apetite for it.

It honestly doesn't strike me as anything but a mediocre-good game. Hence my surprize at the apetite for what I thought was a second edition.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Iron_Rain on August 06, 2022, 10:10:00 PM
@Zak you don't know me, I don't know you. You have clear design capability of some sort, just that what you sell isn't what I typically buy. I mean you no ill will. I also know the legal system is a sewer and the process is the punishment. As someone who never has had the wherewithal to really care one way or another to dig into the internet drama surrounding you... I wish you the best of luck.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 06, 2022, 10:27:29 PM
I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness. 

He said, on a message board run by the self-described "The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords", the RPG Pundit himself.

It wasn't his moniker... Pundit just adopted it after the fact if you want to get technical about it.

You still haven't managed to actually link to anything I did other than say it's bad to lie on the internet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 06, 2022, 10:29:00 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Ozzy Osbourne said it best, in The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 2:

"You meet a lot of people on the way up... Don't fuck them, because you'll meet them on the way down, too."

Still dodging. If you think I was shitty to someone: link it.

It seems like you just don't like being confronted with the fact you're lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 06, 2022, 10:29:13 PM
@Zak you don't know me, I don't know you. You have clear design capability of some sort, just that what you sell isn't what I typically buy. I mean you no ill will. I also know the legal system is a sewer and the process is the punishment. As someone who never has had the wherewithal to really care one way or another to dig into the internet drama surrounding you... I wish you the best of luck.

Thanks
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 06, 2022, 10:57:28 PM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Ozzy Osbourne said it best, in The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 2:

"You meet a lot of people on the way up... Don't fuck them, because you'll meet them on the way down, too."

Still dodging. If you think I was shitty to someone: link it.

It seems like you just don't like being confronted with the fact you're lying.

tubesock is just a troll, you'll be hapier if you put him on your ignore list.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 12:03:37 AM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Ozzy Osbourne said it best, in The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 2:

"You meet a lot of people on the way up... Don't fuck them, because you'll meet them on the way down, too."

Still dodging. If you think I was shitty to someone: link it.

It seems like you just don't like being confronted with the fact you're lying.

tubesock is just a troll, you'll be hapier if you put him on your ignore list.

Blocking trolls doesn't stop them from talking to other people, so it doesn't solve the problem.

Misinformation needs to be fact-checked in the venue where it appears, regardless of the source. If people didn't believe things because the person talking "is a troll" none of this would've happened.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 07, 2022, 12:39:03 AM
I think it sucks that Zak is being slandered like this.  This could happen to any one of us.

Absolutely. We should all stand up for those being wrongly cancelled, accused, and blackballed. Any of us could be the next victim.

And we would have... if Zak hadn't been such an insufferable prick to many of us over the years.  I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness.  And that's not even counting his unfortunate political takes!

Ozzy Osbourne said it best, in The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 2:

"You meet a lot of people on the way up... Don't fuck them, because you'll meet them on the way down, too."

Still dodging. If you think I was shitty to someone: link it.

It seems like you just don't like being confronted with the fact you're lying.

tubesock is just a troll, you'll be hapier if you put him on your ignore list.

Blocking trolls doesn't stop them from talking to other people, so it doesn't solve the problem.

Misinformation needs to be fact-checked in the venue where it appears, regardless of the source. If people didn't believe things because the person talking "is a troll" none of this would've happened.

You do you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 07, 2022, 12:41:24 AM

It's not, it's a totally different game, nothing to do with 10-year Loser Award Winner GMS.

It just sort of looks like the logo of GMS's, that why I got confused.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 07, 2022, 01:46:07 AM

tubesock is just a troll, you'll be hapier if you put him on your ignore list.

I didnt think that this site has the Ignore list function set up.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 07:20:58 AM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
[/quote]

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Zak and all this crappy drama. As he doesn't come across particularly well on the old interwebs (as Venger pointed out).

But what really concerned me, Shark (and I've said this before) was the way Drivethru stopped selling his future books. That to me was the epitome of dangerous and toxic 'cancel culture'. I mean, how can you stop selling a person's work over some 'allegations'? I know that they are a private company, and get to do what they want and all, but I think that's a very shady practice. As an old lefty, I don't like that type of corporate tyranny.

The only people that can make that type of judgment are the courts and it's still ongoing. So at this moment in time, they have no reason to cancel his stuff (IMO).

Depending on what one's view is of 'cancel culture' is, I'm all for it. That is to say, I've personally canceled a number of people. That Fred Hicks buffoon and evilhat for one. I'll never buy another product from them as long as it live.  ;D Which is a shame as I really like Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, SoTC, and Don't Lose your Head.

So speaking as a neutral party - it's facts over feelings as far as I'm concerned (at this point in time anyway).









 

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 08:10:29 AM
double post
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 08:10:53 AM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Zak and all this crappy drama. As he doesn't come across particularly well on the old interwebs (as Venger pointed out).

But what really concerned me, Shark (and I've said this before) was the way Drivethru stopped selling his future books. That to me was the epitome of dangerous and toxic 'cancel culture'. I mean, how can you stop selling a person's work over some 'allegations'? I know that they are a private company, and get to do what they want and all, but I think that's a very shady practice. As an old lefty, I don't like that type of corporate tyranny.

The only people that can make that type of judgment are the courts and it's still ongoing. So at this moment in time, they have no reason to cancel his stuff (IMO).

Depending on what one's view is of 'cancel culture' is, I'm all for it. That is to say, I've personally canceled a number of people. That Fred Hicks buffoon and evilhat for one. I'll never buy another product from them as long as it live.  ;D Which is a shame as I really like Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, SoTC, and Don't Lose your Head.

So speaking as a neutral party - it's facts over feelings as far as I'm concerned (at this point in time anyway).

You've repeatedly claimed I did something wrong, Rob, and repeatedly dodged any request for proof.

You can complain about any kind of culture you want but you are exactly the problem: you're a person who wants to attack people without proof.  Not drawing a line there--feeling that it's really important that everybody hear your fabrication about someone else--that's the impulse that leads to all this cancellation. You're joining in irrational hate on a random innocent stranger and then disavowing responsibility once some of the people who misguidedly jump on your bandwagon go further down the path of being an online jerk than you have already gone.

You crossed the line between defensible and indefensible long ago, and somehow want to justify being not quite as bad. There's a simple solution: stop doing that and treat people as people.

Your take is "I want to lie about creators, and make up bad things they did"

Their takes is "Look at all the bad things people are saying this creator did, shouldn't they face consequences?"

There's precious little difference there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 08:59:18 AM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Zak and all this crappy drama. As he doesn't come across particularly well on the old interwebs (as Venger pointed out).

But what really concerned me, Shark (and I've said this before) was the way Drivethru stopped selling his future books. That to me was the epitome of dangerous and toxic 'cancel culture'. I mean, how can you stop selling a person's work over some 'allegations'? I know that they are a private company, and get to do what they want and all, but I think that's a very shady practice. As an old lefty, I don't like that type of corporate tyranny.

The only people that can make that type of judgment are the courts and it's still ongoing. So at this moment in time, they have no reason to cancel his stuff (IMO).

Depending on what one's view is of 'cancel culture' is, I'm all for it. That is to say, I've personally canceled a number of people. That Fred Hicks buffoon and evilhat for one. I'll never buy another product from them as long as it live.  ;D Which is a shame as I really like Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, SoTC, and Don't Lose your Head.

So speaking as a neutral party - it's facts over feelings as far as I'm concerned (at this point in time anyway).

You've repeatedly claimed I did something wrong, Rob, and repeatedly dodged any request for proof.

You can complain about any kind of culture you want but you are exactly the problem: you're a person who wants to attack people without proof.  Not drawing a line there--feeling that it's really important that everybody hear your fabrication about someone else--that's the impulse that leads to all this cancellation. You're joining in irrational hate on a random innocent stranger and then disavowing responsibility once some of the people who misguidedly jump on your bandwagon go further down the path of being an online jerk than you have already gone.

You crossed the line between defensible and indefensible long ago, and somehow want to justify being not quite as bad. There's a simple solution: stop doing that and treat people as people.

Your take is "I want to lie about creators, and make up bad things they did"

Their takes is "Look at all the bad things people are saying this creator did, shouldn't they face consequences?"

There's precious little difference there.


What are you on about now? Where did I say YOU actually did something wrong?

I don't care about you or your minute internet drama. My only concern here is drivethru and how they treat their creators. AKA - Satanis, Raggi, Red Room, and others.

So I've no idea what you're on about here.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 01:35:04 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 01:40:08 PM
I can only take so much egotistical, self-righteous, condescending doucheness. 

He said, on a message board run by the self-described "The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords", the RPG Pundit himself.

It wasn't his moniker... Pundit just adopted it after the fact if you want to get technical about it.

Thanks for the [unintended] assist?

You can look at it that way it's a free country... But I'm just attempting to point out that he didn't come up with it the name. Pundit just took it to troll the other side (I would assume. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that).


 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on August 07, 2022, 01:52:54 PM
The title of this thread is really fucking misleading considering it's just a bunch of bickering going on.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 01:54:14 PM
The title of this thread is really fucking misleading considering it's just a bunch of bickering going on.

It's kind of relative tho'. I mean, I'm quite enjoying it...  ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 07, 2022, 02:07:27 PM
The title of this thread is really fucking misleading considering it's just a bunch of bickering going on.
That's not really a unique description around here.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 02:25:25 PM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Zak and all this crappy drama. As he doesn't come across particularly well on the old interwebs (as Venger pointed out).

But what really concerned me, Shark (and I've said this before) was the way Drivethru stopped selling his future books. That to me was the epitome of dangerous and toxic 'cancel culture'. I mean, how can you stop selling a person's work over some 'allegations'? I know that they are a private company, and get to do what they want and all, but I think that's a very shady practice. As an old lefty, I don't like that type of corporate tyranny.

The only people that can make that type of judgment are the courts and it's still ongoing. So at this moment in time, they have no reason to cancel his stuff (IMO).

Depending on what one's view is of 'cancel culture' is, I'm all for it. That is to say, I've personally canceled a number of people. That Fred Hicks buffoon and evilhat for one. I'll never buy another product from them as long as it live.  ;D Which is a shame as I really like Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, SoTC, and Don't Lose your Head.

So speaking as a neutral party - it's facts over feelings as far as I'm concerned (at this point in time anyway).

You've repeatedly claimed I did something wrong, Rob, and repeatedly dodged any request for proof.

You can complain about any kind of culture you want but you are exactly the problem: you're a person who wants to attack people without proof.  Not drawing a line there--feeling that it's really important that everybody hear your fabrication about someone else--that's the impulse that leads to all this cancellation. You're joining in irrational hate on a random innocent stranger and then disavowing responsibility once some of the people who misguidedly jump on your bandwagon go further down the path of being an online jerk than you have already gone.

You crossed the line between defensible and indefensible long ago, and somehow want to justify being not quite as bad. There's a simple solution: stop doing that and treat people as people.

Your take is "I want to lie about creators, and make up bad things they did"

Their takes is "Look at all the bad things people are saying this creator did, shouldn't they face consequences?"

There's precious little difference there.


What are you on about now? Where did I say YOU actually did something wrong?

I don't care about you or your minute internet drama. My only concern here is drivethru and how they treat their creators. AKA - Satanis, Raggi, Red Room, and others.

So I've no idea what you're on about here.

You start dogpiling on other troll comments here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/enjoy/255/ and keep on throughout this thread.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 03:26:05 PM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Zak and all this crappy drama. As he doesn't come across particularly well on the old interwebs (as Venger pointed out).

But what really concerned me, Shark (and I've said this before) was the way Drivethru stopped selling his future books. That to me was the epitome of dangerous and toxic 'cancel culture'. I mean, how can you stop selling a person's work over some 'allegations'? I know that they are a private company, and get to do what they want and all, but I think that's a very shady practice. As an old lefty, I don't like that type of corporate tyranny.

The only people that can make that type of judgment are the courts and it's still ongoing. So at this moment in time, they have no reason to cancel his stuff (IMO).

Depending on what one's view is of 'cancel culture' is, I'm all for it. That is to say, I've personally canceled a number of people. That Fred Hicks buffoon and evilhat for one. I'll never buy another product from them as long as it live.  ;D Which is a shame as I really like Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, SoTC, and Don't Lose your Head.

So speaking as a neutral party - it's facts over feelings as far as I'm concerned (at this point in time anyway).

You've repeatedly claimed I did something wrong, Rob, and repeatedly dodged any request for proof.

You can complain about any kind of culture you want but you are exactly the problem: you're a person who wants to attack people without proof.  Not drawing a line there--feeling that it's really important that everybody hear your fabrication about someone else--that's the impulse that leads to all this cancellation. You're joining in irrational hate on a random innocent stranger and then disavowing responsibility once some of the people who misguidedly jump on your bandwagon go further down the path of being an online jerk than you have already gone.

You crossed the line between defensible and indefensible long ago, and somehow want to justify being not quite as bad. There's a simple solution: stop doing that and treat people as people.

Your take is "I want to lie about creators, and make up bad things they did"

Their takes is "Look at all the bad things people are saying this creator did, shouldn't they face consequences?"

There's precious little difference there.


What are you on about now? Where did I say YOU actually did something wrong?

I don't care about you or your minute internet drama. My only concern here is drivethru and how they treat their creators. AKA - Satanis, Raggi, Red Room, and others.

So I've no idea what you're on about here.

You start dogpiling on other troll comments here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/enjoy/255/ and keep on throughout this thread.

Oh, thanks for that... But where did I say "YOU" did something wrong? That's what you said or implied I thought? All I'm just saying is that I don't particularly like you and only because of your interweb attitude and your responce to me when I asked for info on my KS for Demon City. You were quite kurt if I remember correctly, not that I'm going to hunt for that post because I've got better things to do.

This being a public forum I'm happy to respond to posts, like Shark's, Venger, and the OP. In fact, I was talking to Shark originally and you started asking me "for proof" of what, I'm still trying to work out. If you look I've only started responding to 'you' when you asked for "proof" of something. Of whatever that is I still don't know.

I simply don't ever talk to you 'diretly' because I don't particularly like you. And when I say 'I don't support' Drivethru's policy. It's the 'concept' I don't really agree with. You just happen to fall within that remit.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 04:04:01 PM

Greetings!

"Canceling" is bullshit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Zak and all this crappy drama. As he doesn't come across particularly well on the old interwebs (as Venger pointed out).

But what really concerned me, Shark (and I've said this before) was the way Drivethru stopped selling his future books. That to me was the epitome of dangerous and toxic 'cancel culture'. I mean, how can you stop selling a person's work over some 'allegations'? I know that they are a private company, and get to do what they want and all, but I think that's a very shady practice. As an old lefty, I don't like that type of corporate tyranny.

The only people that can make that type of judgment are the courts and it's still ongoing. So at this moment in time, they have no reason to cancel his stuff (IMO).

Depending on what one's view is of 'cancel culture' is, I'm all for it. That is to say, I've personally canceled a number of people. That Fred Hicks buffoon and evilhat for one. I'll never buy another product from them as long as it live.  ;D Which is a shame as I really like Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, SoTC, and Don't Lose your Head.

So speaking as a neutral party - it's facts over feelings as far as I'm concerned (at this point in time anyway).

You've repeatedly claimed I did something wrong, Rob, and repeatedly dodged any request for proof.

You can complain about any kind of culture you want but you are exactly the problem: you're a person who wants to attack people without proof.  Not drawing a line there--feeling that it's really important that everybody hear your fabrication about someone else--that's the impulse that leads to all this cancellation. You're joining in irrational hate on a random innocent stranger and then disavowing responsibility once some of the people who misguidedly jump on your bandwagon go further down the path of being an online jerk than you have already gone.

You crossed the line between defensible and indefensible long ago, and somehow want to justify being not quite as bad. There's a simple solution: stop doing that and treat people as people.

Your take is "I want to lie about creators, and make up bad things they did"

Their takes is "Look at all the bad things people are saying this creator did, shouldn't they face consequences?"

There's precious little difference there.


What are you on about now? Where did I say YOU actually did something wrong?

I don't care about you or your minute internet drama. My only concern here is drivethru and how they treat their creators. AKA - Satanis, Raggi, Red Room, and others.

So I've no idea what you're on about here.

You start dogpiling on other troll comments here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/enjoy/255/ and keep on throughout this thread.

Oh, thanks for that... But where did I say "YOU" did something wrong? That's what you said or implied I thought? All I'm just saying is that I don't particularly like you and only because of your interweb attitude and your responce to me when I asked for info on my KS for Demon City. You were quite kurt if I remember correctly, not that I'm going to hunt for that post because I've got better things to do.

This being a public forum I'm happy to respond to posts, like Shark's, Venger, and the OP. In fact, I was talking to Shark originally and you started asking me "for proof" of what, I'm still trying to work out. If you look I've only started responding to 'you' when you asked for "proof" of something. Of whatever that is I still don't know.

I simply don't ever talk to you 'diretly' because I don't particularly like you. And when I say 'I don't support' Drivethru's policy. It's the 'concept' I don't really agree with. You just happen to fall within that remit.

Great, awesome!

So you've clarified and that's good:

-You decided you don't like me (which is fine) for no real reason you can't articulate (which is fine). People are allowed to do that.

-And all the shit on previous pages where you appeared to be supporting people claiming I had a whole DSM-worth of personality issues, including being manipulative et al or unnecessarily unkind to fans and/or creators, that wasn't really you supporting them in that. Despite what it might look like, you aren't actually backing up those bizarre accusations. If somebody keeps saying them, and you keep going "Yeah, totally" then that would be a contradiction. I'm glad to hear that wasn't what you were doing.

-If you did or do have some problem with stuff for the Kickstarter, please do let me know.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 06:46:29 PM
-And all the shit on previous pages where you appeared to be supporting people claiming I had a whole DSM-worth of personality issues, including being manipulative et al or unnecessarily unkind to fans and/or creators, that wasn't really you supporting them in that. Despite what it might look like, you aren't actually backing up those bizarre accusations. If somebody keeps saying them, and you keep going "Yeah, totally" then that would be a contradiction. I'm glad to hear that wasn't what you were doing.

Please show me where I said that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 07:17:20 PM
-And all the shit on previous pages where you appeared to be supporting people claiming I had a whole DSM-worth of personality issues, including being manipulative et al or unnecessarily unkind to fans and/or creators, that wasn't really you supporting them in that. Despite what it might look like, you aren't actually backing up those bizarre accusations. If somebody keeps saying them, and you keep going "Yeah, totally" then that would be a contradiction. I'm glad to hear that wasn't what you were doing.

Please show me where I said that.

I haven't made a statement about "what you said" I made a statement about what you appeared to be saying.

You appeared to be saying that kind of thing for the last few pages, for example: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/enjoy/285/

But, as I clarified:

We are all, I am sure, very glad to see you weren't saying that, weren't supporting that, and--I am sure--now have nothing but contempt for anyone who might be doing that kind of thing.

This is all good to know, and, again--I super-appreciate how cooperative you've been in clarifying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 07:18:30 PM
-And all the shit on previous pages where you appeared to be supporting people claiming I had a whole DSM-worth of personality issues, including being manipulative et al or unnecessarily unkind to fans and/or creators, that wasn't really you supporting them in that. Despite what it might look like, you aren't actually backing up those bizarre accusations. If somebody keeps saying them, and you keep going "Yeah, totally" then that would be a contradiction. I'm glad to hear that wasn't what you were doing.

Please show me where I said that.

I haven't made a statement about "what you said" I made a statement about what you appeared to be saying.

You appeared to be saying that kind of thing for the last few pages, for example: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/enjoy/285/

But, as I clarified:

We are all, I am sure, very glad to see you weren't saying that, weren't supporting that, and--I am sure--now have nothing but contempt for anyone who might be doing that kind of thing.

This is all good to know, and, again--I super-appreciate how cooperative you've been in clarifying.

One sec.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 07:29:19 PM
-And all the shit on previous pages where you appeared to be supporting people claiming

Ah, I see what you did there you say "appeared". Nice a bit of a non-comital dodge there imo.

But I think I finally see what you are getting to. Basically, you appear think that I'm endorsing what people are saying about you.

That's not technically the case. You're adding 1 + 1 and getting 64. But it's typical internet. People infer shit without actually true understanding. Basically, I don't think you're a particularly nice person and I'm chiming in saying shit like 'damn straight' or whatever. But, so what? There are a ton of people here just ripping into you. If you were nicer to people online I think you'd have a lot more support. But... You do you.

However, to set the record straight (again). I can't really say anything about 'your personality' per se, that is - if you have any disorder(s) or not. I'm not a trained psychologist. Plus I don't really care... I'm sure you couldn't give a shit about my disorders. I'm merely supporting people that are giving you a little grief. Because you don't seem like a very nice person to me. As I said you were rude to me in the past so I'm just returning the favor, and that has nothing to do with your latest court drama. That's none of my business and what do I care anyway?

But I still support your right to a 'fair day' in court and I still stand against drivethru for their actions by condemning you on just 'alegaitons'. In my opinion, I don't think any action should be taken against you until all is said and done. It's basically me standing up for the system (for once).

I keep saying the same thing over and over.

By the way, I most certainly did let you know that I had a problem with the KS. I'll do it again since you asked so nicely. Where's my book (.pdf)? Is the main problem considering it was supposed to be released in 2019, wasn't it?

And I certainly did tell you why I don't like you (or one of the reasons). Basically, you were rude to me when I asked you about the KS (on this very forum) not so long ago. Did I answer your question? I think so...

You seem to be implying that I'm not answering your questions when I blatantly am. But that's the internet for you - You're allowed to do that 'for no particular reason'. It's easier to put that under the carpet and go for a gish gallop.

At the end of the day... I'm very much enjoying this thread.

So carry on. ;D













Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 07:46:39 PM
-And all the shit on previous pages where you appeared to be supporting people claiming

Ah, I see what you did there you say "appeared". Nice a bit of a non-comital dodge there imo.

Ok, this is an example of spreading misinformation:


That's neither a dodge nor noncommittal, it is a straightforward statement: you appeared to be doing something you have attempted to clarify you were not doing.

That' no more a "dodge" or "noncommital" than saying someone wearing a police uniform who isn't appears to be a cop: its an absolute, unclarifiably simple description of lived reality.

Please don't spread misinformation on the internet.

Quote
If you were nicer to people online I think you'd have a lot more support.

It's important to do the right thing even when it's unpopular. If you're nice to bad actors, then that's bad.

Quote
As I said you were rude to me in the past so I'm just returning the favor.

We can't evaluate the truth of this statement since you can't produce the interaction.

I certainly can't imagine any reason I'd be unkind to you for no good reason.

Quote
By the way, I most certainly did let you know that I had a problem with the KS. I'll do it again since you asked so nicely. Where's my book? Is the main problem considering it was supposed to be released in 2019, wasn't it?

I can certainly answer this:

1. The game was finished a while ago--at that point I'd done all the art and writing I expected to need to do.

2. Then there was the Kickstarter, there were some rewards--add-ons by other authors (as one might expect) and I did a little work to get those integrated. It didn't take long, less than a month.

3. My obligations were done, except for checking on other peoples' work

4. Then the harassment campaign began in earnest (Feb 2019). This affected my work on Demon City very little because I had done my stuff already.

5. The book's officially in the hands of the layout guy--Shawn--who's been making 400-odd very beautiful pages very slowly. Occasionally he asked me for extra pictures, which I provided.

For some reason instead of complaining to Shawn or to the project manager, Mike, lots of people complain to me--as if somehow I was laying out or publishing my own book.

6. Last month I proofread the final spreads. We decided, for clarity's sake, to do a few things that would be helpful to the reader like make the "What happens when you go below zero Toughness" into a flowchart and making sure every time we use a piece of game jargon its capitalized. These are tasks for the graphic designer, not Zak.

7. Shawn is finalizing those spreads now.

8. After that he gives it to Mike, who then has to handle printing in a post-shipping-crisis world but everyone else is managing to get their books printed so I'm sure he'll find a solution.

9. In the meantime, while I wait, I wrote a free, fully-illustrated 30-page module for backers--I mentioned this in the KS comments. If you want it, say so.


Quote
And I certainly did tell you why I don't like you (or one of the reasons). Basically, you were rude to me when I asked you about the KS (on this very forum) not so long ago. Did I answer your question? I think so.

No, you didn't provide the quote. We need the proof.

Quote
It's easier to put that under the carpet and go for a gish gallop.

A "gish gallop" is an uncheckably large series of false statements given as evidence to support a false premise.

So, I didn't do that and you're spreading misinformation again.

So while at first I thought you were clarifying that you hadn't done the terrible thing you at first appeared to be doing, regardless of what you say, the second you wrote that I was doing a "noncommittal dodge" or a "gish gallop" you are exactly what I said you are:

A bad person on the internet making false accusations of terrible behavior who is apparently grumpy that other people who make similar false accusations believe in severe consequences for the made-up terrible behavior.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 08:06:42 PM
A bad person on the internet making false accusations of terrible behavior who is apparently grumpy that other people who make similar false accusations believe in severe consequences for the made-up terrible behavior.

Riiiiight... Well, I clarified my position, and I don't really care what you think. I'm stating 'my opinions' only - so I won't be running around trying to copy and paste shit for you. Take it or leave it. It's that simple. :)

Well, complaining to you seems the right thing to do, as it's pretty much your Kickstarter (which is now obnoxiously late!). At the end of the day, I don't care who's responsible, I paid money and you guys said it would be released in 2019. But it's wasn't. Of course, I don't mind if it's a few months late or a bit longer but this is very poor indeed. Would you not agree?

Well, at least you answered my question about the KS which I actually appreciate.

However, I did contact the DIY guys recently because I had to change my original backer email address (as it went kaput). And they were super cool about it. So I'm pretty happy with my communications with those dudes.

















Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 08:19:49 PM
I'm stating 'my opinions' only

Saying something is an attempt to evade it's not solely an opinion: you are making a (false) claim about motive.

Saying something is a "gish gallop" is not solely an opinion: it by definition is a claim that my concluson is false and the information I used to support it is false.

It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".

Or: "You are on this website in order to draw people into a pyramid scheme that's just my opinion"

You aren't telling the truth.

Quote
Of course, I don't mind if it's a few months late or a bit longer but this is very poor indeed. Would you not agree?

It's not up to me. I like what Shawn's been doing, and if he were to say the only way to get work that good is to make the Kickstarter really late I'd have a hard time deciding.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 08:26:16 PM
You aren't telling the truth.

I see... You are entitled to your opinion of course.  ;D

But I'm still enjoying this thread. It's very enlightening...








Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 08:26:59 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 08:30:00 PM
Yes Rob. I know the origin of the phrase.

Right... Well, personally I believe pundit just trolls the shit out of the woke scolds and he does it very well to be fair. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says of course.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on August 07, 2022, 08:39:53 PM
LOL calm down.

Christ, Zak, the way you respond you'd think someone had accused you of being David Hill Jr. in disguise.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 07, 2022, 09:07:01 PM
What's funny about Zak is most people find him to be an insufferable asshole, and upon hearing that, he demands an exacting definition of "insufferable asshole", conforming of course to his made-up-on-the-spot rules, so he can "debunk" said definition, without realizing that this behavior is, in a nutshell, why most people find him to be an insufferable asshole.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 09:10:16 PM
What's funny about Zak is most people find him to be an insufferable asshole, and upon hearing that, he demands an exacting definition of "insufferable asshole", conforming of course to his made-up-on-the-spot rules, so he can "debunk" said definition, without realizing that this behavior is, in a nutshell, why most people find him to be an insufferable asshole.

Indeed...  ;D

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 09:19:51 PM
What's funny about Zak is most people find him to be an insufferable asshole, and upon hearing that, he demands an exacting definition of "insufferable asshole", conforming of course to his made-up-on-the-spot rules, so he can "debunk" said definition, without realizing that this behavior is, in a nutshell, why most people find him to be an insufferable asshole.


Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Aglondir on August 07, 2022, 09:28:20 PM
What's funny about Zak is most people find him to be an insufferable asshole, and upon hearing that, he demands an exacting definition of "insufferable asshole", conforming of course to his made-up-on-the-spot rules, so he can "debunk" said definition, without realizing that this behavior is, in a nutshell, why most people find him to be an insufferable asshole.

I saw a (long) interview with Zak on YouTube where he seemed reasonable enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7gY06hV-o

Start at 50:00. The part where he talks about lawyers and judges looking at internet flamewars and saying "Holy fuck, what's wrong with these people? is this real?"





Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 09:31:57 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 09:34:36 PM
What's funny about Zak is most people find him to be an insufferable asshole, and upon hearing that, he demands an exacting definition of "insufferable asshole", conforming of course to his made-up-on-the-spot rules, so he can "debunk" said definition, without realizing that this behavior is, in a nutshell, why most people find him to be an insufferable asshole.

I saw a (long) interview with Zak on YouTube where he seemed reasonable enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7gY06hV-o

Start at 50:00. The part where he talks about lawyers and judges looking at internet flamewars and saying "Holy fuck, what's wrong with these people? is this real?"

Yeah, professional grown-ups have to look at these conversations where people say 'lol proof im too busy to do that , yr a sshole 4 asking for it'.

Like: this shit may be normal to y'all but to people outside this it seems completely insane to attack someone for pointing out 101-level right-and-wrong stuff.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 09:38:11 PM

Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".

You can ask people to tell the truth without being an asshole about it. Or you can be an asshole about it. You do tend to choose the later these days. You didn't used to do that. I expect it's what you've been going through these past few years which has caused you to write like you and everyone you're talking to is under deposition and waiting for a gotcha moment.

No, there was no time where I acted any differently, it's just that you had fewer friends or people you were sympathetic to who'd been tempted to cross the line.

Trolls have been trolling since forever and I have been telling people to stop putting up with it since forever

If you don't call people out for lying or you try to police "tone" in the face of criminally false allegations, you are the asshole.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 09:57:45 PM

Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".

You can ask people to tell the truth without being an asshole about it. Or you can be an asshole about it. You do tend to choose the later these days. You didn't used to do that. I expect it's what you've been going through these past few years which has caused you to write like you and everyone you're talking to is under deposition and waiting for a gotcha moment.

No, there was no time where I acted any differently, it's just that you had fewer friends or people you were sympathetic to who'd been tempted to cross the line.

Trolls have been trolling since forever and I have been telling people to stop putting up with it since forever

If you don't call people out for lying or you try to police "tone" in the face of criminally false allegations, you are the asshole.

Naw Zak I've read your posts and such for a decade or so and your tone has in fact changed to being much more careful and much more critical of what people say. At least that's my perspective.

Ironically... If he saw what was said about him in some of the RPG Facebook groups he'd probably have a conniption fit (that's not a 'fact' of course just my humble opinion).  ;D

 

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:02:07 PM

Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".

You can ask people to tell the truth without being an asshole about it. Or you can be an asshole about it. You do tend to choose the later these days. You didn't used to do that. I expect it's what you've been going through these past few years which has caused you to write like you and everyone you're talking to is under deposition and waiting for a gotcha moment.

No, there was no time where I acted any differently, it's just that you had fewer friends or people you were sympathetic to who'd been tempted to cross the line.

Trolls have been trolling since forever and I have been telling people to stop putting up with it since forever

If you don't call people out for lying or you try to police "tone" in the face of criminally false allegations, you are the asshole.

Naw Zak I've read your posts and such for a decade or so and your tone has in fact changed to being much more careful and much more critical of what people say. At least that's my perspective.

You are watching people lie on the internet in a transparent way right in front of you.

If you aren't "critical" of them then you're the asshole.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 10:04:37 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:06:25 PM

Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".

You can ask people to tell the truth without being an asshole about it. Or you can be an asshole about it. You do tend to choose the later these days. You didn't used to do that. I expect it's what you've been going through these past few years which has caused you to write like you and everyone you're talking to is under deposition and waiting for a gotcha moment.

No, there was no time where I acted any differently, it's just that you had fewer friends or people you were sympathetic to who'd been tempted to cross the line.

Trolls have been trolling since forever and I have been telling people to stop putting up with it since forever

If you don't call people out for lying or you try to police "tone" in the face of criminally false allegations, you are the asshole.

Naw Zak I've read your posts and such for a decade or so and your tone has in fact changed to being much more careful and much more critical of what people say. At least that's my perspective.

Ironically... If he saw what was said about him in some of the RPG Facebook groups he'd probably have a conniption fit (that's not a 'fact' of course just my humble opinion).  ;D

It's so strange that you'd think after over a decade of this I'd be surprised, or that you seem to think the literal worst things that can be said about a person haven't already been said, in public, by people who got sued about it.

I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

Like: you spreading misinformation doesn't change my heartbeat. This is the job. This is my life now: documenting the harassment, fact-checking the people lying.

I see stuff, I screencap it, I index the file in case I need it later.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:06:50 PM

Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".

You can ask people to tell the truth without being an asshole about it. Or you can be an asshole about it. You do tend to choose the later these days. You didn't used to do that. I expect it's what you've been going through these past few years which has caused you to write like you and everyone you're talking to is under deposition and waiting for a gotcha moment.

No, there was no time where I acted any differently, it's just that you had fewer friends or people you were sympathetic to who'd been tempted to cross the line.

Trolls have been trolling since forever and I have been telling people to stop putting up with it since forever

If you don't call people out for lying or you try to police "tone" in the face of criminally false allegations, you are the asshole.

Naw Zak I've read your posts and such for a decade or so and your tone has in fact changed to being much more careful and much more critical of what people say. At least that's my perspective.

You are watching people lie on the internet in a transparent way right in front of you.

If you aren't "critical" of them then you're the asshole.

OK Zak. You're proving my point, but you go on with your bad self.

If you aren't critical of a dodge like that, you're the asshole.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 10:19:33 PM
I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

That's not quite true either is it now?

Even if we don't like each other per se. I still feel that you are due your day in court. So I have certainly 'some' sympathy for you there. And I feel that it's unfair what drivethru is doing to you as a creator. I've said this on multiple occasions as well. It's not a binary issue... And I'm not going to write pages on trying to explain my exact thought process as that would bore everyone including myself.

Regardless of you attempting to 'sue people' no one seems to care on the FB groups they are saying some rather unsavory stuff. Which in my opinion is not backed up with facts, and I don't like that shit either.







Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:23:01 PM
I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

That's not quite true either is it now?

Even if we don't like each other per se. I still feel that you are due your day in court. So I have certainly 'some' sympathy for you there. And I feel that it's unfair what drivethru is doing to you as a creator. I've said this on multiple occasions as well. It's not a binary issue... And I'm not going to write pages on trying to explain my exact thought process as that would bore everyone including myself.

Regardless of you attempting to 'sue people' no one seems to care on the FB groups they are saying some rather unsavory stuff. Which in my opinion is not backed up with facts, and I don't like that shit.

In that quote I am not talking about sympathy I am talking about imagination.

You are still imagining that --after all this time-- people talking shit would give me a "conniption fit".

You're seriously not picturing the daily life of other person talking to you. I might as well be a bot or an npc in a computer game--which probably explains why you felt free to lie earlier in the conversation.

I don't have an interiority to you. I am something you talk at or about, not a person who has experiences and types things that disagree with you because of those lived experiences.

And if you really "don't like that shit"--screencap it and send it to me. Otherwise it goes on forever.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 07, 2022, 10:26:39 PM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:42:10 PM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

Uh duh , I'm a porn actor. Of course I am.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 07, 2022, 10:42:34 PM
I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

That's not quite true either is it now?

Even if we don't like each other per se. I still feel that you are due your day in court. So I have certainly 'some' sympathy for you there. And I feel that it's unfair what drivethru is doing to you as a creator. I've said this on multiple occasions as well. It's not a binary issue... And I'm not going to write pages on trying to explain my exact thought process as that would bore everyone including myself.

Regardless of you attempting to 'sue people' no one seems to care on the FB groups they are saying some rather unsavory stuff. Which in my opinion is not backed up with facts, and I don't like that shit.

In that quote I am not talking about sympathy I am talking about imagination.

You are still imagining that --after all this time-- people talking shit would give me a "conniption fit".

You're seriously not picturing the daily life of other person talking to you. I might as well be a bot or an npc in a computer game--which probably explains why you felt free to lie earlier in the conversation.

I don't have an interiority to you. I am something you talk at or about, not a person who has experiences and types things that disagree with you because of those lived experiences.

And if you really "don't like that shit"--screencap it and send it to me. Otherwise it goes on forever.

You do realize I was being a tad 'playful' with the term conniption fit? It was banter...

Then you say I see you as an 'NPC'. Despite me saying I have 'some' sympathy for you. Which I take exception to - just like you would

Then you call me a 'liar' because you interpret everything so 'literally' and take it waaaaaay too seriously (in my opinion).

Now you're asking for help with screencaps!??

Honestly, this is one of the strangest conversations I've ever had. I'm genuinely confused. Because you can't say anything here, even when I actually say something positive like I have 'some' sympathy for you and support your day in court and oppose the DT sanction BS. You get all defensive instead of trying to have an actual conversation. I just don't get it.








Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 10:45:27 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on August 07, 2022, 10:48:00 PM
zak s is a dumbass confirmed
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:57:11 PM
I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

That's not quite true either is it now?

Even if we don't like each other per se. I still feel that you are due your day in court. So I have certainly 'some' sympathy for you there. And I feel that it's unfair what drivethru is doing to you as a creator. I've said this on multiple occasions as well. It's not a binary issue... And I'm not going to write pages on trying to explain my exact thought process as that would bore everyone including myself.

Regardless of you attempting to 'sue people' no one seems to care on the FB groups they are saying some rather unsavory stuff. Which in my opinion is not backed up with facts, and I don't like that shit.

In that quote I am not talking about sympathy I am talking about imagination.

You are still imagining that --after all this time-- people talking shit would give me a "conniption fit".

You're seriously not picturing the daily life of other person talking to you. I might as well be a bot or an npc in a computer game--which probably explains why you felt free to lie earlier in the conversation.

I don't have an interiority to you. I am something you talk at or about, not a person who has experiences and types things that disagree with you because of those lived experiences.

And if you really "don't like that shit"--screencap it and send it to me. Otherwise it goes on forever.

You do realize I was being a tad 'playful' with the term conniption fit? It was banter...

It doesn't matter what I do or don't realize, what matters is the message that you put in public.

If you're clarifying to the public that it' s obviously completely preposterous to suggest at this late date that Id' have a pathologically extreme reaction to defamation that's good.

I am glad to see you're able to separate truth from fiction in some cases.

Quote
Then you call me a 'liar' because you interpret everything so 'literally' and take it waaaaaay too seriously (in my opinion).

Again, it doesn't matter what I do or don't realize, what matters is the message that you put in public.

If you are now saying it's obviously totally wrong to claim:

-I did a "gish gallop"

-I was dodging

-I was noncommittal

Then it's good that you're clarifying this to the public who might've been mislead before when you said these things.


Quote
Now you're asking for help with screencaps!??

I always have.

You either want things to stop and change or you want to endlessly complain about them.

If you want to endlessly complain: do nothing.

If you think the folks that you see lying shouldn't, then you should give me screencaps. It might help.

Quote
Honestly, this is one of the strangest conversations I've ever had. I'm genuinely confused. Because you can't say anything here, even when I actually say something positive like I have 'some' sympathy for you and support your day in court and oppose the DT sanction BS. You get all defensive instead of trying to have an actual conversation. I just don't get it.

This is an actual conversation.

It may not be one you're used to:

You might be used to a conversation which is essentially about (on top) palling around on the internet and making friends and (underneath, sometimes unconsciously) power and acquiring allies.

In that kind of conversation you are either with people or against them. You can lie and talk shit and do bad things but if you're on their team then it doesn't matter. You won't be called out by anyone asking to be your friend and nobody who announces themselves as opposed to you will offer aid.

This is not that kind of conversation:

In this conversation some people are saying things that aren't true on the internet.

In order to prevent them from being entirely believed (which happens all the time, no matter how trolly or unserious the peopel talking are) I have to come here and let intelligent lurkers reading know that people are not saying true things.

In this kind of conversation I don't say things in order to curry favor with one side or another I say them because they are true and I have a moral obligation to point that out.

So if you lie, I have to say you are lying.

If you say you don't like something that I can help end I have to tell you that I can help end it.

I don't have a choice about that.

I am not here to engage (or reject) your sympathy. I am here to fact-check you so that other people reading don't think you are a reliable source of information.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 10:59:19 PM

Translation: "Asshole means someone who asks me to tell the truth".

You can ask people to tell the truth without being an asshole about it. Or you can be an asshole about it. You do tend to choose the later these days. You didn't used to do that. I expect it's what you've been going through these past few years which has caused you to write like you and everyone you're talking to is under deposition and waiting for a gotcha moment.

No, there was no time where I acted any differently, it's just that you had fewer friends or people you were sympathetic to who'd been tempted to cross the line.

Trolls have been trolling since forever and I have been telling people to stop putting up with it since forever

If you don't call people out for lying or you try to police "tone" in the face of criminally false allegations, you are the asshole.

Naw Zak I've read your posts and such for a decade or so and your tone has in fact changed to being much more careful and much more critical of what people say. At least that's my perspective.

You are watching people lie on the internet in a transparent way right in front of you.

If you aren't "critical" of them then you're the asshole.

OK Zak. You're proving my point, but you go on with your bad self.

If you aren't critical of a dodge like that, you're the asshole.

Yes I must be an asshole and the whole world is against you and I and everyone is a liar. Gotcha.

No:

1. You appear to be an asshole.

2. Lots of gamers are against me but not that many other people, because a certain kind of casual malignance is encouraged in online gamer spaces that isn't the norm elsewhere.

3. A lot of those people are liars.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 11:02:31 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 11:13:45 PM
Zak, this is what conversations with you look like these days:

Poster: I think Zak is a poopy head

Zak: Show me a photo of poop, and my head, and my head being made of that poop. If you can't, you're a liar.

It used to be you'd crack a joke. Now, you're like an autistic kid who takes everything very literally, very seriously, and who gets upset at the drop of a hat over the most innocuous things.

Fuck dude. You make it super hard for people who want to defend you, to defend you.

You are illustrating the problem:

There's a reason why people don't casually insult strangers all day out in the real world.

Casually attacking innocent people escalates to people reading casually thinking that attack is justified which in turn escalates to not really caring whether this or that new accusation is true because who cares that guys a jerk I heard it from this dude.

The fact that it's normalized here doesn't make it ok. And by pretending it was ever ok you are making the problem worse.

You, Mistwell, should be like "Hey, it's really stupid that we've normalized calling people names, that doesn't help us do anything useful and the people who do it are making it harder to do any of the constructive things the RPG internet can do."

If I sound "autistic" to you it's because I am aware my audience includes:

-Painfully stupid people
-People who will use any vagary of language to extend the conversation unnecessarily
-People who will use any vagary of language to actually materially damage human lives
-Their lawyers

..so forgive me if Im not using the chummy cool kid lingo you love to hear on the internet role-playing game forum that you like hanging out on.


Over and over we have the same basic conversation:

Z: this thing is bad an makes life worse for real people
You: lol saying that isn't normal
Z: Yes, I know but this thing is bad an makes life worse
You: lol saying that isn't normal you don't know that you must have brain damage

You don't have to keep defending people acting like sociopaths just because your'e used to it. There's no moral obligation to do that.

I do actually have to keep pointing out when people lie. I actually do have a moral obligation to do that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on August 07, 2022, 11:17:53 PM
I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

That's not quite true either is it now?

Even if we don't like each other per se. I still feel that you are due your day in court. So I have certainly 'some' sympathy for you there. And I feel that it's unfair what drivethru is doing to you as a creator. I've said this on multiple occasions as well. It's not a binary issue... And I'm not going to write pages on trying to explain my exact thought process as that would bore everyone including myself.

Regardless of you attempting to 'sue people' no one seems to care on the FB groups they are saying some rather unsavory stuff. Which in my opinion is not backed up with facts, and I don't like that shit.

In that quote I am not talking about sympathy I am talking about imagination.

You are still imagining that --after all this time-- people talking shit would give me a "conniption fit".

You're seriously not picturing the daily life of other person talking to you. I might as well be a bot or an npc in a computer game--which probably explains why you felt free to lie earlier in the conversation.

I don't have an interiority to you. I am something you talk at or about, not a person who has experiences and types things that disagree with you because of those lived experiences.

And if you really "don't like that shit"--screencap it and send it to me. Otherwise it goes on forever.

You do realize I was being a tad 'playful' with the term conniption fit? It was banter...

Then you say I see you as an 'NPC'. Despite me saying I have 'some' sympathy for you. Which I take exception to - just like you would

Then you call me a 'liar' because you interpret everything so 'literally' and take it waaaaaay too seriously (in my opinion).

Now you're asking for help with screencaps!??

Honestly, this is one of the strangest conversations I've ever had. I'm genuinely confused. Because you can't say anything here, even when I actually say something positive like I have 'some' sympathy for you and support your day in court and oppose the DT sanction BS. You get all defensive instead of trying to have an actual conversation. I just don't get it.

Greetings!

Rob. Pour yourself a pint. Light up a good cigar.

Unplug, man. Some people you can have conversations with, and some people you can't. Regardless of whatever kind of legal battles and court drama swirling around Zak, it seems like many interactions between him and others online--even when ostensibly talking with someone that is not overtly hostile--the interaction always devolves into what we see here.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 11:22:15 PM
I think that the only explanation for a comment like this is, even after all this time, you're not able to imagine another human being--what it would be like to be them, going through the shit you and other hatemob members put them through day after day.

That's not quite true either is it now?

Even if we don't like each other per se. I still feel that you are due your day in court. So I have certainly 'some' sympathy for you there. And I feel that it's unfair what drivethru is doing to you as a creator. I've said this on multiple occasions as well. It's not a binary issue... And I'm not going to write pages on trying to explain my exact thought process as that would bore everyone including myself.

Regardless of you attempting to 'sue people' no one seems to care on the FB groups they are saying some rather unsavory stuff. Which in my opinion is not backed up with facts, and I don't like that shit.

In that quote I am not talking about sympathy I am talking about imagination.

You are still imagining that --after all this time-- people talking shit would give me a "conniption fit".

You're seriously not picturing the daily life of other person talking to you. I might as well be a bot or an npc in a computer game--which probably explains why you felt free to lie earlier in the conversation.

I don't have an interiority to you. I am something you talk at or about, not a person who has experiences and types things that disagree with you because of those lived experiences.

And if you really "don't like that shit"--screencap it and send it to me. Otherwise it goes on forever.

You do realize I was being a tad 'playful' with the term conniption fit? It was banter...

Then you say I see you as an 'NPC'. Despite me saying I have 'some' sympathy for you. Which I take exception to - just like you would

Then you call me a 'liar' because you interpret everything so 'literally' and take it waaaaaay too seriously (in my opinion).

Now you're asking for help with screencaps!??

Honestly, this is one of the strangest conversations I've ever had. I'm genuinely confused. Because you can't say anything here, even when I actually say something positive like I have 'some' sympathy for you and support your day in court and oppose the DT sanction BS. You get all defensive instead of trying to have an actual conversation. I just don't get it.

Greetings!

Rob. Pour yourself a pint. Light up a good cigar.

Unplug, man. Some people you can have conversations with, and some people you can't. Regardless of whatever kind of legal battles and court drama swirling around Zak, it seems like many interactions between him and others online--even when ostensibly talking with someone that is not overtly hostile--the interaction always devolves into what we see here.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It hasn't devolved, it's markedly improved:

Lots of misinformation Rob spread, he admitted wasn't true.

People reading who are rational now have more information: they know Rob is not a reliable source. That's a good conversation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 11:27:24 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 07, 2022, 11:38:52 PM


You are illustrating the problem:

There's a reason why people don't casually insult strangers all day out in the real world.

Ah, so you're not a sports fan I see.

Because you do that, with sports. And RPG discussion online, particularly on this message board, is like sports discussions. Where you do in fact casually insult each other. Because it's not serious. It's just taking the piss out of each other. It's playful. And that is something you used to grok just fine. Before the dark days.

No, people don't casually accuse each other of "gish galloping" and being "manipulative" down at the bar.

And they super don't do it in front of audiences of thousands

You're not making sense

Quote
Quote
Casually attacking innocent people

Nobody here is innocent people, and you are probably in the top 5 least innocent people here.

So, you're lying:

I'm innocent. Burden of proof is on you.

Again: not a thing people say during the Lakers game.

Quote
No you're wrong. You walked into a biker bar and you expect it to be church

This is neither. This is a public space read by thousands of people who take what's said here as fact

There is literally no advantage to letting people lie here.

If there was: one of you would have been able to describe it by now, after all these years.

Quote
But it DOES do something useful. It's cathartic. It de-stresses,

The need for a shitty person who won't go to therapy to insult someone to "de-stress" is less important than the right of their victims to not be lied about and for the pubic to not be misinformed. In fact: most of the problems on RPGnet this forum complains about would never have happened if it weren't for misinformation.

That's why "I lied to de-stress" isn't a valid defense in any court anywhere I'm aware of.


Quote
But you USED TO BE THAT GUY. On Google Hangouts you were that guy.

At literally no point ever did I allow misinformation on my G+ page or anywhere else.

You're lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 07, 2022, 11:55:12 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 12:08:25 AM

Nobody here is innocent people, and you are probably in the top 5 least innocent people here.

So, you're lying:

I'm innocent. Burden of proof is on you.

OK, perfect example. Nobody normal in this situation would call someone a liar for calling you, a rock star porn star, "not innocent" in a conversation like this. Usually people take it as a compliment or the obvious joke it's intended to be in this kind of context. There is no justifiable context here to take that accusation literally and seriously and then call someone a liar and start asking for proof they're not innocent, in terms of society standards of innocence.

Which you used to know. It used to be you'd reply in this kind of conversation with a Tim Curry type "Oh you know it, big boy" type comment like we just got out of Rocky Horror Picture Show.

It's like you've lost the ability to read the room.

Fuck the room: you have to do the right thing even when it's unpopular.

Again:

Z: "This thing you're doing, it's bad"
You: "But it's normal to do bad things here!"

Yeah I get that because you aren't getting what you need out of a good therapist or friends in your life, you make stupid accusations to "de-stress" or just because you don't want to engage in a way that helps anyone.

We're not talking about whether that's "normal" here: it is.

We're talking about how that's bad because (as everyone on this site says all the time) the RPG community is fucked.

And having (and defending) norms where there's no taboo against saying shit that's not true is the cause of it. Every single major issue in the scene. Every time you do the "Liar's Rights Activist" dance you're helping things be worse.

This was true when the Big Purple did it, it was true when people were attacking Maliszewski over his kickstarter, it was true when people attacked MicKinney and Raggi, it was true when people were edition warring and you can't just admit that because your lying is sacred or playful or whatever excuse you have.

The thing where nobody's allowed to lie? That was the rule on my Google + page that you apparently enjoyed so much.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 12:13:03 AM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 12:27:06 AM

Again:

Z: "This thing you're doing, it's bad"
You: "But it's normal to do bad things here!"

Yeah I get that because you aren't getting what you need out of a good therapist or friends in your life, you make stupid accusations to "de-stress" or just because you don't want to engage in a way that helps anyone.

We're not talking about whether that's "normal" here: it is.

We're talking about how that's bad because (as everyone on this site says all the time) the RPG community is fucked.

And having (and defending) norms where there's no taboo against saying shit that's not true is the cause of it. Every single major issue in the scene. Every time you do the "Liar's Rights Activist" dance you're helping things be worse.

This was true when the Big Purple did it, it was true when people were attacking Maliszewski over his kickstarter, it was true when people attacked MicKinney and Raggi, it was true when people were edition warring and you can't just admit that because your lying is sacred or playful or whatever excuse you have.

The thing where nobody's allowed to lie? That was the rule on my Google + page that you apparently enjoyed so much.

Are you still trying to say me jokingly saying nobody here is innocent and you're probably in the top 5 least innocent people here is me lying about you? Seriously, after the context is made crystal clear you, you're still beating that drum?

You must be real fucking fun at a party.

This isn't a party.

This is a place where people get information on RPG creators, products, techniques, etc.

While there are people who (weirdly) think being here is fun, that's way less important than whether the things said here are true because they can be googled by people with no social connection to anyone involved.

So maybe someone lies because it's fun.

Maybe someone lies because context makes it "clear" (to who?) that you're joking around.

Maybe someone lies because they didn't bother to check.

None of that matters the second someone googles the topic and looks for information on it.

And there's extensive proof that everybody's jokes and hyperbole and exaggerations and sloppy statements are believed and acted on. And that's pretty much where every single problem in the RPG scene comes from.

You can't deny that.

So, there's a massive downside to being sloppy with the truth and no meaningful upside.

You want to have a party: leave the house.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GnomeWorks on August 08, 2022, 05:39:29 AM
Whoever summoned shitmuffin: let this be a lesson learned, don't do it.

To shitmuffin: fuck you, you're a psychotic asshole who does nothing but talk out his ass. That there is anyone willing to give your narcissistic bullshit the time of day at this point frankly surprises me.

And as I said the last time you reared your disgusting face: don't fucking quote me, you worthless fucking shitstain, or otherwise address me directly. You are a fucking blight, and nothing you say is of any value.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 08, 2022, 05:45:52 AM
Lots of misinformation Rob spread, he admitted wasn't true.

I did?

Okaaaay.... Well, whatever gets you through the day, Zak.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 08, 2022, 05:50:09 AM
Rob. Pour yourself a pint. Light up a good cigar.

Unplug, man. Some people you can have conversations with, and some people you can't. Regardless of whatever kind of legal battles and court drama swirling around Zak, it seems like many interactions between him and others online--even when ostensibly talking with someone that is not overtly hostile--the interaction always devolves into what we see here.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well said, Shark. ;D

I think I'll take your advice... I'll have a few Jamesons, and watch this from afar. ;)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 08, 2022, 06:22:06 AM
Whoever summoned shitmuffin: let this be a lesson learned, don't do it.

To shitmuffin: fuck you, you're a psychotic asshole who does nothing but talk out his ass. That there is anyone willing to give your narcissistic bullshit the time of day at this point frankly surprises me.

And as I said the last time you reared your disgusting face: don't fucking quote me, you worthless fucking shitstain, or otherwise address me directly. You are a fucking blight, and nothing you say is of any value.
I was finding his posts entertaining. And thank you for proving what he said...again.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:24:46 AM
Whoever summoned shitmuffin: let this be a lesson learned, don't do it.

To shitmuffin: fuck you, you're a psychotic asshole who does nothing but talk out his ass. That there is anyone willing to give your narcissistic bullshit the time of day at this point frankly surprises me.

And as I said the last time you reared your disgusting face: don't fucking quote me, you worthless fucking shitstain, or otherwise address me directly. You are a fucking blight, and nothing you say is of any value.

Prove it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:26:07 AM
Lots of misinformation Rob spread, he admitted wasn't true.

I did?

Okaaaay.... Well, whatever gets you through the day, Zak.

Ok, feel free to clarify:

Are you saying I, for example, did a "gish gallop"?

If so: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Vampire Rabbit on August 08, 2022, 06:31:18 AM
I saw a (long) interview with Zak on YouTube where he seemed reasonable enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7gY06hV-o

Start at 50:00. The part where he talks about lawyers and judges looking at internet flamewars and saying "Holy fuck, what's wrong with these people? is this real?"


It really is a good video. I don't know what I would be like if I had gone with years of non-stop being drug through the mud with false claims like he has. I think that at some point that would just destroy me and my happiness and I'd be swallowed by the darkness and go to war with everyone, everywhere. I hope Zak can find some peace, happiness, and ability to publish books after the courts have proven all of his accusers guilty and found him to be innocent.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 08, 2022, 06:32:32 AM
Rob. Pour yourself a pint. Light up a good cigar.

PS - I meant to say. If you or the fam ever come over to the Emerald Isle to visit Cork. We should definitely meet up for a few (or a shit-ton) Jamesons.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on August 08, 2022, 06:32:54 AM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:39:45 AM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?

Say what I lied about and then prove it.

Also, as an aside, its so weird you still do this after all these years.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on August 08, 2022, 06:44:13 AM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?

Say what I lied about and then prove it.

Also, as an aside, its so weird you still do this after all these years.

Not directed at you.

Although, Mistwell may have a point about about you being "alone against the world" as your attitude.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:47:23 AM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?

Say what I lied about and then prove it.

Also, as an aside, its so weird you still do this after all these years.

Not directed at you.

Although, Mistwell may have a point about about you being "alone against the world" as your attitude.

Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 08, 2022, 07:52:40 AM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?
Well that came out of nowhere.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 08, 2022, 07:59:53 AM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?
Well that came out of nowhere.
Not really. These days, more than 90% of Jeffy's posts are nothing but trolling.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Fheredin on August 08, 2022, 08:57:49 AM
As someone who has done the "alone against the world" thing for years (thank God for everything but legal allegations) I have to say the majority opinion in practically every circumstance....sucks. The average person is nowhere near as thoughtful, foresightful, or well intended as they think they are.

As to your particular situation, Zak, I am sorry that you that an internet mob descended on you. If you were guilty, then it's a matter for the police, and people should be grown up enough about matters that after the trial and jail/ probation/ whatever else, you've done your time and there's no value being vindictive or trying to exclude you. If you were falsely accused, then being vindictive and excluding you was always in the wrong. In both instances, a digital mob descending all over websites has no capacity to do good and a significant capacity to do harm. Your responses on this thread suggest to me that you're thinking exactly the same thing.

This was one of the incidents which leads me to think one of the key problems is that internet communities do not have formally elected community leaders, which means they do not actually have accountability to community members. The other two incidents I experienced were with Adam Koebel's cancellation (a much more clear-cut example of internet mobs going too far over an obvious hill of beans) and the r/RPGDesign / r/RPGCreation schism.

As the last one is quite obscure, I think I should explain it a bit. I was a mod of RPGDesign at the timer, and a random new member cited "racist" activity on the member-made Discord the community had linked in the sidebar, and of course because this was in the height of the George Floyd protests, that was a hot button. I researched the actual context, and came to the conclusion that the Admins of the Discord had been targeted with harassment on their own server, then some of the quotes from it had been taken out of context. I concluded this was a psyops operation to either destroy the Discord, defame the members running it, or to defame the RPGDesign sub itself.  However, none of the other mods were willing to side with me against the mob and formally clear the Discord of all wrongdoing. They wanted to delete the link and be done with the incident, and they outvoted me.

Internet mobs can and do have real consequences for your employment, so constantly bowing the knee to them is not a good idea. It's time to actually have a formal digital government so that someone can actually say "no" to these mobs.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Vampire Rabbit on August 08, 2022, 09:06:38 AM
As someone who has done the "alone against the world" thing for years (thank God for everything but legal allegations) I have to say the majority opinion in practically every circumstance....sucks. The average person is nowhere near as thoughtful, foresightful, or well intended as they think they are.

As to your particular situation, Zak, I am sorry that you that an internet mob descended on you. If you were guilty, then it's a matter for the police, and people should be grown up enough about matters that after the trial and jail/ probation/ whatever else, you've done your time and there's no value being vindictive or trying to exclude you. If you were falsely accused, then being vindictive and excluding you was always in the wrong. In both instances, a digital mob descending all over websites has no capacity to do good and a significant capacity to do harm. Your responses on this thread suggest to me that you're thinking exactly the same thing.

This was one of the incidents which leads me to think one of the key problems is that internet communities do not have formally elected community leaders, which means they do not actually have accountability to community members. The other two incidents I experienced were with Adam Koebel's cancellation (a much more clear-cut example of internet mobs going too far over an obvious hill of beans) and the r/RPGDesign / r/RPGCreation schism.

As the last one is quite obscure, I think I should explain it a bit. I was a mod of RPGDesign at the timer, and a random new member cited "racist" activity on the member-made Discord the community had linked in the sidebar, and of course because this was in the height of the George Floyd protests, that was a hot button. I researched the actual context, and came to the conclusion that the Admins of the Discord had been targeted with harassment on their own server, then some of the quotes from it had been taken out of context. I concluded this was a psyops operation to either destroy the Discord, defame the members running it, or to defame the RPGDesign sub itself.  However, none of the other mods were willing to side with me against the mob and formally clear the Discord of all wrongdoing. They wanted to delete the link and be done with the incident, and they outvoted me.

Internet mobs can and do have real consequences for your employment, so constantly bowing the knee to them is not a good idea. It's time to actually have a formal digital government so that someone can actually say "no" to these mobs.

This. All of this. 100%
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 09:40:58 AM
If Zak wants to make a difference about people who talk crap about him, he should go to rpg.net and do a search.

People who have defended him have gotten banned and the moderators make some horrible accusations against Zak.   Do the world a favor and sue the purple piece of crap about of business

*Note* I am doing a search using rpg.net's shit search.  When I have examples I will post them.

Here is one:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/

Post 219 shows how shitty people are and want to deplatform him:  https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/page-22#post-22856466

Of course personal attacks are wrong on rpg.net, unless its people they hate.

RPG.net let people pile on accusations about Zak and said in post 2 or 3 that they would lock the thread, and then didnt until page 142:  https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/page-22#post-22856466


Thats just a few


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Vampire Rabbit on August 08, 2022, 10:13:48 AM
If Zak wants to make a difference about people who talk crap about him, he should go to rpg.net and do a search.

People who have defended him have gotten banned and the moderators make some horrible accusations against Zak.   Do the world a favor and sue the purple piece of crap about of business

*Note* I am doing a search using rpg.net's shit search.  When I have examples I will post them.

Here is one:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/

Post 219 shows how shitty people are and want to deplatform him:  https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/page-22#post-22856466

Of course personal attacks are wrong on rpg.net, unless its people they hate.

RPG.net let people pile on accusations about Zak and said in post 2 or 3 that they would lock the thread, and then didnt until page 142:  https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/page-22#post-22856466


Thats just a few

It is hard and expensive, but these people and that business deserve to be sued for their intentional lying and trying to destroy people.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 10:22:47 AM
The problem is, Zak tried to be an e-celebrity and piggyback off his gf's tiddies. If he would've been content to stay anonymous and make money, it'd be fine. But Zak wanted to be a e-celeb. And that has its costs.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on August 08, 2022, 10:46:29 AM
Like: you spreading misinformation doesn't change my heartbeat. This is the job. This is my life now: documenting the harassment, fact-checking the people lying.

I see stuff, I screencap it, I index the file in case I need it later.

This seems like an incredibly sad way to live one's life.  I'm reminded of the Shelter Skelter story from the old Twilight Zone where a survivalist who's built a huge bomb shelter winds up surviving a nuclear accident, thinking the Ruskies have dropped the bombs he stays holed up in his shelter and becomes completely unhinged, thinking rescuers are likely pillagers and refusing to come out.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 11:04:18 AM

It is hard and expensive, but these people and that business deserve to be sued for their intentional lying and trying to destroy people.

I understand this but if he truly wants to defend himself he can't just go after easy targets.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 08, 2022, 12:39:08 PM
The problem is, Zak tried to be an e-celebrity and piggyback off his gf's tiddies. If he would've been content to stay anonymous and make money, it'd be fine. But Zak wanted to be a e-celeb. And that has its costs.
Tiddies always have costs. Unfortunately,  some of those costs are hidden...especially when the tiddies aren't.

Feel free to ignore this post. I'm all in on my cruise's drink package right now. Free upgrades can be Abad thing ...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 08, 2022, 12:56:32 PM
Hey Zak! 

I'm firmly in the camp of 'you're an asshole'. I think you've proved it several times in this thread, and you've certainly proved it many other times and many other places.  But part of what makes you an asshole is that you like to demand that I go find multiple conversations and quote them here, then insist that I should have asked for clarification because you are not actually an asshole, and it's MY FAULT if I got that mistaken impression. 

Well, we can have an epistemological argument about whether or not it is possible to 'know' whether you're an asshole, but that doesn't sound fun to me.  Instead, I'll just go on telling people that I've interacted with you before and I felt that you came across as an asshole.  I always hope that other people choose to make their own impressions without relying exclusively on my judgement, but if they're asking for an opinion, I'll certainly give them my honest opinion - which I know you're in support of because you made the claim earlier in this thread that speaking the truth is paramount. 

If it makes you feel any better, my opinion carries very little weight with other posters on this forum.  In fact, many here might regard me calling you an asshole as a commendation of your personality instead.    But I'm not too worried about that - I'm pretty confident that if they keep engaging you in conversation they'll realize that I was right, and maybe they'll evaluate other positions where we've disagreed and make the realization that they were wrong there, too. 

I would hope it goes without saying that you shouldn't consider this harassment - you seem to have a burning need to know WHY people don't like you so I'm happy to share.  I don't make a habit of following you around and confronting you.  It's also not about whether any specific accusations leveled against you are correct or not - I can say that I thought you were an asshole before any allegations of abuse came out.  We could debate any number of situations you've factually been in and whether your specific actions would qualify as a 'yes' in any 'AITA' thread, but that would not be fun for me. 

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:13:30 PM
If Zak wants to make a difference about people who talk crap about him, he should go to rpg.net and do a search.

People who have defended him have gotten banned and the moderators make some horrible accusations against Zak.   Do the world a favor and sue the purple piece of crap about of business

*Note* I am doing a search using rpg.net's shit search.  When I have examples I will post them.

Here is one:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/

Post 219 shows how shitty people are and want to deplatform him:  https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/page-22#post-22856466

Of course personal attacks are wrong on rpg.net, unless its people they hate.

RPG.net let people pile on accusations about Zak and said in post 2 or 3 that they would lock the thread, and then didnt until page 142:  https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/zak-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-book.853000/page-22#post-22856466


Thats just a few

This entire thread started because I successfully sued an RPGnet mod. It changed policy at RPGnet and made that mod stop attacking people.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:15:09 PM
The problem is, Zak tried to be an e-celebrity and piggyback off his gf's tiddies. If he would've been content to stay anonymous and make money, it'd be fine. But Zak wanted to be a e-celeb. And that has its costs.

No you're either lying or didn't do your homework. I was a painter showing in museums long before I ever met that girl. The gamer internet is not the entire world.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:16:46 PM
Like: you spreading misinformation doesn't change my heartbeat. This is the job. This is my life now: documenting the harassment, fact-checking the people lying.

I see stuff, I screencap it, I index the file in case I need it later.

This seems like an incredibly sad way to live one's life.  I'm reminded of the Shelter Skelter story from the old Twilight Zone where a survivalist who's built a huge bomb shelter winds up surviving a nuclear accident, thinking the Ruskies have dropped the bombs he stays holed up in his shelter and becomes completely unhinged, thinking rescuers are likely pillagers and refusing to come out.

Then you're being too dramatic and thinking about it wrong.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:17:40 PM

It is hard and expensive, but these people and that business deserve to be sued for their intentional lying and trying to destroy people.

I understand this but if he truly wants to defend himself he can't just go after easy targets.

If you think GenCon is an easy target I'd love to see what you think a hard target is.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/11/dungeons-defamation-role-playing-game-convention-libel-case-can-go-forward/
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:21:21 PM
Hey Zak! 

I'm firmly in the camp of 'you're an asshole'. I think you've proved it several times in this thread, and you've certainly proved it many other times and many other places.  But part of what makes you an asshole is that you like to demand that I go find multiple conversations and quote them here, then insist that I should have asked for clarification because you are not actually an asshole, and it's MY FAULT if I got that mistaken impression. 

Outside this fucked up microworld that's pretty much how things like that work.

Imagine being at a dinner table, calling somebody names, then when everyone asks "What made you decide that?" you just run away.

Outside the gamer internet, if you treat people like shit and have no real reason you can articulate or prove, you are the asshole--and for good reason.

Quote
I would hope it goes without saying that you shouldn't consider this harassment

It objectively is. And when I say "objectively" I mean "objectively" there. It matches the definition of harassment: your statements of having some beef are not meant to help anyone fix anything (ie they are not a critique) because the person can't get enough information out of you about your complain to change any perceived problem.

It is exactly the same, structurally, as driving past someone and yelling:

"Asshole"
"What did I do?"
"You asked what you did!"

...and driving off. A heckler is not a critic. You're not being held accountable for what you say so it has no real content. There's no way for anyone but you to separate behavior that would piss you off from behavior that wouldn't.

You claim I did something wrong and have nothing to back it up. That means you're a harasser.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 02:24:40 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:36:21 PM

You know how stupid that looks, right?

This is the problem we're having communicating:

You're thinking I am here to speak to you and your fellow trolls (and that I need to "look good" to them) and don't understand that I am not doing that because I am not trying to. None of these words I am typing is an attempt to change the way you, Mistwell, think.

You are not the audience for the comment I am writing here: it is only addressed to you the way a person might answer an interviewer or someone at a press conference, the audience is people you will never know whose names you don't know who do not act like RPGsite regulars. You are an occasion for a fact-check.

You raise popular faq-type objections and I explain them.

Why?

Activating (or failing to activate) theRPGsite regulars doesn't do anything anyone needs done. A bunch (more) randos hating on me who have been doing that since 2009 is less of a problem than using the opportunity of them being like that as a teachable moment for people who are googling the problem and need information.

So, you guys troll harder than you were trolling before. I lose no points off the board: no action that was possible yesterday has become harder.

However, more than one person since this thread began has been persuaded to look at the video or the other evidence and begins to see the problem: that's helpful and a genuine, material win that might matter later. They've said so.

So just answering y'all straight is something that loses me nothing and gains me something (more people who do see the problem and who don't like lying).

So you can stop saying over and over "BUT YOU;RE NOT PERSUADING ME PERSONALLY INTERNET TROLL MISTWELL!!! DON'T YOU SEE HOW YOU AREN'T DOING THAT??" it doesn't matter. If you were persuaded what would you do? You yourself say you used to like how I talked to you and even then it wasn't like you were a whirlwind of helpful activism.

I am answering you guys because you're saying things that aren't true. I am doing it without the least regard for the precious conventions of webspeech you treasure.

Smart people lurking don't care about tone and aren't sympathetic to people attacking people about tone--they care what happened. Everyone else isn't smart enough to be helpful anyway.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 02:41:29 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:42:33 PM
dp
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 02:45:01 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 08, 2022, 02:45:33 PM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?

Say what I lied about and then prove it.

Also, as an aside, its so weird you still do this after all these years.

Not directed at you.

Although, Mistwell may have a point about about you being "alone against the world" as your attitude.

Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.

Or you could learn to read, accept you over reacted to something only you took as being directed at you due to your lack of reading comprehension and apologize for that.

Instead you act like a smug cunt.

So much so you have me defending Jeff who I have muted and can only read when you quote him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Visitor Q on August 08, 2022, 02:46:23 PM

Imagine being at a dinner table, calling somebody names, then when everyone asks "What made you decide that?" you just run away.


God-damn. That would have gotten me out of a lot of boring family Easter dinners.





(Structurally Christmas dinners would have been funnier, but I'm stickler for auto-biographical accuracy).
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:46:56 PM

You're thinking I am here to speak to you and your fellow trolls (and that I need to "look good" to them) and don't understand that I am not doing that.

Except I am not one of those trolls. I was out there actively defending you to trolls.

I understand you think that. Or claim to.

However: you've been asked questions about your claims and failed to answer them, and you defended lying about people on the grounds it's good therapy for the liar. That means you're no better than them--regardless of which side you think you're on.

Quote
You come across to anyone who reads this thread in the future as a douchebag. I am not saying you're failing to persuade ME, I am saying you're damaging your reputation TO ANYONE READING THIS.

That's provably untrue because there are literally people in the comments saying they watched the video.

So: no, lil troll, you are not everyone.

You do not represent everyone.

Your intuition of what everyone thinks isn't accurate.

You can't be treated as a stand-in for everyone.

No matter how hard your lil troll heart tells you that your own reactions are universal.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:48:38 PM
It's like you're saying "You're a redhead that's just my opinion".
You're a whore. That's not an opinion.  That's a fact.

And you are a liar. What of it?

Say what I lied about and then prove it.

Also, as an aside, its so weird you still do this after all these years.

Not directed at you.

Although, Mistwell may have a point about about you being "alone against the world" as your attitude.

Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.

Or you could learn to read, accept you over reacted to something only you took as being directed at you due to your lack of reading comprehension and apologize for that.

Instead you act like a smug cunt.

So much so you have me defending Jeff who I have muted and can only read when you quote him.

If Jeff engages fully and feels slighted, I would happily apologize.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 02:48:58 PM
This entire thread started because I successfully sued an RPGnet mod. It changed policy at RPGnet and made that mod stop attacking people.

The moderator went away.  I still see anyone who defend you get banned from threads with comments from mods alluding to the accusations from Mandy (which I personally have no knowledge of whether they are true or not- thats for the courts)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 02:50:12 PM

If you think GenCon is an easy target I'd love to see what you think a hard target is.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/11/dungeons-defamation-role-playing-game-convention-libel-case-can-go-forward/

I didn't mention GenCon but if you have a case than good for you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:51:29 PM
This entire thread started because I successfully sued an RPGnet mod. It changed policy at RPGnet and made that mod stop attacking people.

The moderator went away.  I still see anyone who defend you get banned from threads with comments from mods alluding to the accusations from Mandy (which I personally have no knowledge of whether they are true or not- thats for the courts)

That may be true but a lot of other things at RPGnet have changed--not to make it better to talk there, but they do make it harder for the outside world to notice what's said on RPGnet, which is a good thing.

The chief danger of the site is that naive people stumble upon it and think what they read there is accurate. That's harder to do now.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 08, 2022, 02:52:15 PM


Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.

Or you could learn to read, accept you over reacted to something only you took as being directed at you due to your lack of reading comprehension and apologize for that.

Instead you act like a smug cunt.

So much so you have me defending Jeff who I have muted and can only read when you quote him.

If Jeff engages fully and feels slighted, I would happily apologize.

Instead of what any normal person (and even me who is on the spectrum) would do.

I'll repeat myself: You're acting like a pretentious smug cunt.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 02:55:06 PM

Instead of what any normal person (and even me who is on the spectrum) would do.

I'll repeat myself: You're acting like a pretentious smug cunt.

Agreed.  Zak thinks he is doing damage control, but what he really is doing is trying to put out a fire with Gasoline.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 02:58:32 PM

Instead of what any normal person (and even me who is on the spectrum) would do.

I'll repeat myself: You're acting like a pretentious smug cunt.

Agreed.  Zak thinks he is doing damage control, but what he really is doing is trying to put out a fire with Gasoline.

No, this fire will never go out.

Again: trolls here trolling more isn't more bad than literally even one more person being persuaded to actually look at the evidence. And they have been.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 02:58:46 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:01:48 PM


Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.

Or you could learn to read, accept you over reacted to something only you took as being directed at you due to your lack of reading comprehension and apologize for that.

Instead you act like a smug cunt.

So much so you have me defending Jeff who I have muted and can only read when you quote him.

If Jeff engages fully and feels slighted, I would happily apologize.

Instead of what any normal person (and even me who is on the spectrum) would do.

I'll repeat myself: You're acting like a pretentious smug cunt.

I understand that your mental health issues may make you want to call people names instead of try to level criticism in a helpful way and that you're doing it. I saw you. You're seen.

I hope if the problem is not feeling seen you now know I saw you do it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 03:01:55 PM
So this is actually a pattern that has been observed before. Look up the 1d4chan info on him or any sort of "History of Zak S" thing. He used to do this back when G+ is a thing. He's a pretty good troll, so he'd get responses, sound reasonable while provoking others, and constantly pushing the "burden of proof" on others. http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html)

The real trick is to talk about him without engaging with him, that REALLY gets him riled up. I wanna see if he'll throw a wobbly. Or alternatively, just ignore him, lmao.

Also, LofP is a bad game written by bad people. Raggi is worse than Wick.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 03:05:25 PM

No, this fire will never go out.

Again: trolls here trolling more isn't more bad than literally even one more person being persuaded to actually look at the evidence. And they have been.

The fire wont go out when you come into a forum acting arrogant, going after people who are defending you and acting like a jerk.  After hearing about what is going on from you, I started to loosen my dislike of you.  But your arrogance and tone has made it worse.

Geekybugle is 100% correct about what he said.

Its not what you say, it's how you say it and how you are saying it just makes things worse.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:06:27 PM


However: you've been asked questions about your claims and failed to answer them

You asked me about my claim you're one of the top 5 least innocent people here? I must have missed that. Care to quote yourself on where you asked me to do that?

No that isn't a claim I made.

You claimed I used to be nice to people who lied--on Google +. I pointed out that I never did.

That's a clear case of misinformation (for example) : address that.

You also claimed everyone will react like you and they didn't: address that.

You claimed that people lying was worth it because somehow the liar getting to "blow off steam" is better than the consequences of just saying "don't lie": address that.

Or don't address it--because that's what a troll would do.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:08:24 PM

No, this fire will never go out.

Again: trolls here trolling more isn't more bad than literally even one more person being persuaded to actually look at the evidence. And they have been.

The fire wont go out when you come into a forum acting arrogant, going after people who are defending you and acting like a jerk.  After hearing about what is going on from you, I started to loosen my dislike of you.  But your arrogance and tone has made it worse.

Geekybugle is 100% correct about what he said.

Its not what you say, it's how you say it and how you are saying it just makes things worse.

You're a troll who attacks people based on perceived tone.

Once you're that person, nothing any good person could ever do could get you on side.

They'd either:

-Allow themself to be tone-poiliced to curry favor with a troll. Which would be morally wrong and cause harm.

-Not do that and piss you off.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:09:07 PM
So this is actually a pattern that has been observed before. Look up the 1d4chan info on him or any sort of "History of Zak S" thing. He used to do this back when G+ is a thing. He's a pretty good troll, so he'd get responses, sound reasonable while provoking others, and constantly pushing the "burden of proof" on others. http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html)

The real trick is to talk about him without engaging with him, that REALLY gets him riled up. I wanna see if he'll throw a wobbly. Or alternatively, just ignore him, lmao.

Also, LofP is a bad game written by bad people. Raggi is worse than Wick.

There's no proof of any of that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 03:09:48 PM

No, this fire will never go out.

Again: trolls here trolling more isn't more bad than literally even one more person being persuaded to actually look at the evidence. And they have been.

The fire wont go out when you come into a forum acting arrogant, going after people who are defending you and acting like a jerk.  After hearing about what is going on from you, I started to loosen my dislike of you.  But your arrogance and tone has made it worse.

Geekybugle is 100% correct about what he said.

Its not what you say, it's how you say it and how you are saying it just makes things worse.

I really wouldn't bother. You're casting pearls before swine. Some people are incapable of learning.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 03:10:56 PM
So this is actually a pattern that has been observed before. Look up the 1d4chan info on him or any sort of "History of Zak S" thing. He used to do this back when G+ is a thing. He's a pretty good troll, so he'd get responses, sound reasonable while provoking others, and constantly pushing the "burden of proof" on others. http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html)

The real trick is to talk about him without engaging with him, that REALLY gets him riled up. I wanna see if he'll throw a wobbly. Or alternatively, just ignore him, lmao.

Also, LofP is a bad game written by bad people. Raggi is worse than Wick.

There's no proof of any of that.

lol
lmao

sorry ur illiterate nerd

try harder
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 03:12:51 PM

You're a troll who attacks people based on perceived tone.

*Snip*


You are clearly clueless and cannot be helped.  I am found of the following quote:

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

All I can say at this point folks is stop feeding the troll.  He clearly is just here for attention and if you take his attention away, he will go away.  It's clearly the case.  He isnt participating in any other threads, just this one.  He is only here to stroke his ego.

Dont bother replying, you are on my ignore list.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GhostNinja on August 08, 2022, 03:14:23 PM

I really wouldn't bother. You're casting pearls before swine. Some people are incapable of learning.

Yep, I agree.  I have already ignore listed him and I am not going to feed the troll any longer.  As I said he is only in this thread, not others.  He just wants attention and to stroke his ego.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:17:23 PM

You're a troll who attacks people based on perceived tone.

*Snip*

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

I am going to have to repeat myself:

Yet one more RPGsite thread full of trolls trolling is less important than people reading actually going and looking for more information--which they provably did do.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 03:35:07 PM
Edit - This conversation was not worth having
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 03:37:18 PM


However: you've been asked questions about your claims and failed to answer them

You asked me about my claim you're one of the top 5 least innocent people here? I must have missed that. Care to quote yourself on where you asked me to do that?

No that isn't a claim I made.

You claimed I used to be nice to people who lied--on Google +. I pointed out that I never did.

No I claimed you used to HAVE A BETTER APPROACH on Google+. To everyone. That you didn't take everything people said literally, you didn't look to pick fights, you had a sense of humor you seem to lack now, and you understood context better.

Quote
That's a clear case of misinformation (for example) : address that.

Is that even possible? Does Google+ exist in archives? If so, I'd genuinely like to see some of that (even aside from this conversation). But I was obviously giving you my personal impression - purely my opinion, and therefore not something to be proved or disproved.

Quote
You also claimed everyone will react like you and they didn't: address that.

You're right, I cannot speak for "everyone". I can say that more than just my mind has been changed in this thread to the negative about you. And that can't have been your intent here.

Again, maybe you forgot, but you and I have spoken privately on social media, with my real name I believe. We knew someone in common, who we both knew in-person. I am not just some rando troll out here looking to make you look bad. You burnt me for no good reason, and you appear to still be chest-thumping over it. I am not going to talk shit about you, but you won't see me jumping in to defend you much anymore. Because now I feel like if I say anything about you, even if I think it's positive, you might decide to be a jerk to me again. And nobody needs that in their lives.


Quote
You claimed that people lying was worth it because somehow the liar getting to "blow off steam" is better than the consequences of just saying "don't lie": address that.

Show me where I said it was "worth it"? You said "that doesn't help us do anything useful" and I gave you a list of some of the things I thought it did which were useful. I didn't make a judgement call on if I though it was, on-balance, "worth it" to engage in that. I can tell you I am rapidly finding diminishing returns on our conversation though.

Quote
Or don't address it--because that's what a troll would do.


I am waiting for YOU to address your outrageous reaction to my claiming nobody here is innocent and you're probably in the top 5 least innocent people here, rock star porn star. And since you're so fond of defining terms, innocent in this context (to rational people reading this thread) is "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil." Are you attempting to describe yourself as free from guilt or sin through lack of knowledge of evil, as our society defines evil? Because I think, RELATIVE TO MOST PEOPLE HERE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD, this society we live in would likely rank you in the top 5 least innocent people on this message board based on "sin" like being a porn star.

Again, I really really wouldn't. The conversation isn't constructive. Zak is getting off on the fact that you're talking and responding to him, recharging his emotional batteries that way. Don't fall for it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 08, 2022, 03:38:53 PM
I'm reminded of this comic:

Penny Arcade - The Adventures of Twisp & Catsby (https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/the-adventures-of-twisp-and-catsby)

And while I can understand posting for an audience that may not even exist, I think it's worth considering and defining 'asshole' if that's going to be bandied about. 

Anatomy of Assholes, From Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/202008/the-anatomy-assholes). 

Among the '8 Traits of the Dark Core' is the statement: Others say I brag too much, but everything I say is true. 

My question, does that sound like anyone posting on this thread?   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 08, 2022, 03:40:37 PM
You guys are right.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 08, 2022, 03:45:03 PM


Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.

Or you could learn to read, accept you over reacted to something only you took as being directed at you due to your lack of reading comprehension and apologize for that.

Instead you act like a smug cunt.

So much so you have me defending Jeff who I have muted and can only read when you quote him.

If Jeff engages fully and feels slighted, I would happily apologize.

Instead of what any normal person (and even me who is on the spectrum) would do.

I'll repeat myself: You're acting like a pretentious smug cunt.

I understand that your mental health issues may make you want to call people names instead of try to level criticism in a helpful way and that you're doing it. I saw you. You're seen.

I hope if the problem is not feeling seen you now know I saw you do it.

It's not that you're acting like a pretentious, smug cunt, it's my aspergers thast makes me believe so...

I'll correct my self, for the record: You're not acting like a pretentious, smug cunt, you ARE a pretentious, smug cunt.

Welcome to the ignore zone asshole.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 08, 2022, 03:45:47 PM
You guys are right.

This is the internet.  Are you sure you want to even suggest that you might have been wrong, even if it was just engaging with someone that isn't worth your time?  If nobody engages with Zak what will be left with?  Emptiness and ennui?  Talking about fantasy town building?  We must have conflict and drama.  Someone will step up! 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 08, 2022, 03:48:05 PM
So this is actually a pattern that has been observed before. Look up the 1d4chan info on him or any sort of "History of Zak S" thing. He used to do this back when G+ is a thing. He's a pretty good troll, so he'd get responses, sound reasonable while provoking others, and constantly pushing the "burden of proof" on others. http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html)

The real trick is to talk about him without engaging with him, that REALLY gets him riled up. I wanna see if he'll throw a wobbly. Or alternatively, just ignore him, lmao.

Also, LofP is a bad game written by bad people. Raggi is worse than Wick.
The "second guy" behaviors in that link describe many posters here. You're trying to tie it to one guy, but it's the cultural norm of this site.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:48:59 PM
Quote
No I claimed you used to HAVE A BETTER APPROACH on Google+. To everyone. That you didn't take everything people said literally, you didn't look to pick fights, you had a sense of humor you seem to lack now, and you understood context better.

I'm not taking what you say literally or failing to understand context, I am saying we are both being read by people who will do that, so it's good to be more careful.

I explained that several times

Quote
You also claimed everyone will react like you and they didn't: address that.

You're right, I cannot speak for "everyone".

Great. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.


Quote
I can say that more than just my mind has been changed in this thread to the negative about you.

Since:

1. you weren't doing anything significant to help before
and
2. you actively defended lying on the internet

...that's not a great loss.

You're not helping innocent people and you're defending shitty people.

Quote
Quote
You claimed that people lying was worth it because somehow the liar getting to "blow off steam" is better than the consequences of just saying "don't lie": address that.

Show me where I said it was "worth it"?

Ok, so this was a conclusion I drew because:

1. you said lying was good because "blowing off steam"

2. I responded saying the harm to victims and the public  plus drawing a bright line against it was more important

3. You then went and talked about other stuff instead of going "Oh I'm super sorry that's a good point I should not defend lying on the internet"

..I assumed you thought this.

So:

I am happy to hear you don't think it.

Let's have a conversation about that.

So: what's your judgment call now on the utility of lying on the internet vs calling out lying on the internet?

Quote
I am waiting for YOU to address your outrageous reaction to my claiming nobody here is innocent and you're probably in the top 5 least innocent people here, rock star porn star.

It's simple:

1. Either you're claiming I did something actually meaningfully wrong which is just incorrect.

or

2. You made a rhetorical gesture which at best did nothing helpful and at worst confused the issue and the RPG scene is fucked up because of such rhetorical gestures. Please stop.

If I didn't make myself clear the first time, I am making it clear now.

I hope it is clear.

I hope the clarity of my position is clear to you.

I hope it is as a fully-Windexed window upon my point of view about that bad thing you did.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:50:07 PM

Again, I really really wouldn't. The conversation isn't constructive. Zak is getting off on the fact that you're talking and responding to him, recharging his emotional batteries that way. Don't fall for it.

It's so hard for you to wrap your head around the concept of fact-checking that you're inventing bizarre freudian explanations for why someone might say lying on the internet is bad.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:51:38 PM

My question, does that sound like anyone posting on this thread?   

You're still not doing the dinner table thing:

You go into a room, yell that someone's an asshole, then when asked why you decided that, you treat people like that's the offense.

I understand this is normal to you here but that doesn't make it ok.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:52:18 PM


Nah. When you are dealing with a systemic problem (and, in Mistwell's case someone alleging the systemic problem is good) it's just a heap shot to say that.

All you had to do was say "Oh I meant the other guy"

Good. You meant the other guy. Good to know.

Or you could learn to read, accept you over reacted to something only you took as being directed at you due to your lack of reading comprehension and apologize for that.

Instead you act like a smug cunt.

So much so you have me defending Jeff who I have muted and can only read when you quote him.

If Jeff engages fully and feels slighted, I would happily apologize.

Instead of what any normal person (and even me who is on the spectrum) would do.

I'll repeat myself: You're acting like a pretentious smug cunt.

I understand that your mental health issues may make you want to call people names instead of try to level criticism in a helpful way and that you're doing it. I saw you. You're seen.

I hope if the problem is not feeling seen you now know I saw you do it.

It's not that you're acting like a pretentious, smug cunt, it's my aspergers thast makes me believe so...

I'll correct my self, for the record: You're not acting like a pretentious, smug cunt, you ARE a pretentious, smug cunt.

Welcome to the ignore zone asshole.

If you are going to ignore me then that is another palpable good outcome.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 03:57:08 PM
I am now claiming this thread in the name of how much you hate the Antichrist.

Tell me how much you hate the Antichrist?

I really hate the Antichrist.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM
I am now claiming this thread in the name of how much you hate the Antichrist.

Tell me how much you hate the Antichrist?

I really hate the Antichrist.

I was always a big fan of the Antichrist.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 04:00:07 PM
Well, what would one expect from a hylic?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 08, 2022, 04:29:06 PM

My question, does that sound like anyone posting on this thread?   

You're still not doing the dinner table thing:

You go into a room, yell that someone's an asshole, then when asked why you decided that, you treat people like that's the offense.

I understand this is normal to you here but that doesn't make it ok.

Zak,

It's totally okay if you don't remember conversations that we've been part of.  For the sake of MY CONVENIENCE, would you be willing to explain what you think should happen to someone who lies?  If you'll do me that favor, I'm willing to quote a specific instance where you said one thing, then later said the opposite.  Specifically it was a situation where you said 'I would not do that' and then later you said 'I would do exactly that'.  Additionally, I'm willing to provide links to other people providing evidence of times that you have lied - specifically an instance where a former friend and professional colleague catches you impersonating someone else.  Finally, I'm willing to provide citations where you have demanded specific rules in an argument (ie, every comment must specifically refer to the intended audience, rather than assume that it refers specifically to the author) but then immediately proceeded to ignore the rule you demanded so you claimed things as 'universal' when they applied specifically to you. 

I don't want to mischaracterize your position on people who lie.  I remember it being very harsh - something to the effect of 'they should no longer be permitted to participate in society'.  But I know how much you like having a chance to clarify your positions and I don't want to be accused of lying because I didn't bother to find the specific quote I had in mind. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 04:36:07 PM
Why are you even doing that? Post the links and let us have a laugh at Zak the Loser's expense.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 04:41:05 PM

My question, does that sound like anyone posting on this thread?   

You're still not doing the dinner table thing:

You go into a room, yell that someone's an asshole, then when asked why you decided that, you treat people like that's the offense.

I understand this is normal to you here but that doesn't make it ok.

Zak,

It's totally okay if you don't remember conversations that we've been part of.  For the sake of MY CONVENIENCE, would you be willing to explain what you think should happen to someone who lies?

1. A lie is claimed.
2. The person either goes "Ok I lied" or gives some other explanation (like "I made a mistake" or "I . Either way: they address the claim, so long as it's made by someone else who is also following the rules (you can't claim protection from a code you won't follow).
3. If the explanation is not satisfactory to the person who made the claim they say why, including providing proof. (Burden of proof is on the accuser.)
4. If the lie is proved at that point, the original person apologizes. That's it. It's over.
5. If there's no apology, then everyone reading takes steps to create significant negative feedback for them, enough that it discourages them from doing so in the future. They should also--by whatever means they can--work to prevent them from making statements that accuse anyone else (even by implication) of anything until they receive enough therapy to realize they should apologize.

Quote
Specifically it was a situation where you said 'I would not do that' and then later you said 'I would do exactly that'. 

I don't know what the instance is but based solely on this description it could easily be a situation where I changed my mind. In order for there to be a lie you'd have to prove a lot more.

Quote
Additionally, I'm willing to provide links to other people providing evidence of times that you have lied - specifically an instance where a former friend and professional colleague catches you impersonating someone else.

Burden of proof is on you. Claiming something is proof is not the same as proof.

Colleagues have accused me of nearly everything under the sun.

Quote
Finally, I'm willing to provide citations where you have demanded specific rules in an argument (ie, every comment must specifically refer to the intended audience, rather than assume that it refers specifically to the author) but then immediately proceeded to ignore the rule you demanded so you claimed things as 'universal' when they applied specifically to you. 

Provide it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 04:44:04 PM

My question, does that sound like anyone posting on this thread?   

You're still not doing the dinner table thing:

You go into a room, yell that someone's an asshole, then when asked why you decided that, you treat people like that's the offense.

I understand this is normal to you here but that doesn't make it ok.

Zak,

It's totally okay if you don't remember conversations that we've been part of.  For the sake of MY CONVENIENCE, would you be willing to explain what you think should happen to someone who lies?  If you'll do me that favor, I'm willing to quote a specific instance where you said one thing, then later said the opposite.  Specifically it was a situation where you said 'I would not do that' and then later you said 'I would do exactly that'.  Additionally, I'm willing to provide links to other people providing evidence of times that you have lied - specifically an instance where a former friend and professional colleague catches you impersonating someone else.  Finally, I'm willing to provide citations where you have demanded specific rules in an argument (ie, every comment must specifically refer to the intended audience, rather than assume that it refers specifically to the author) but then immediately proceeded to ignore the rule you demanded so you claimed things as 'universal' when they applied specifically to you. 

I don't want to mischaracterize your position on people who lie.  I remember it being very harsh - something to the effect of 'they should no longer be permitted to participate in society'.  But I know how much you like having a chance to clarify your positions and I don't want to be accused of lying because I didn't bother to find the specific quote I had in mind.

Also, it's important to note:

I am sure I can disprove any claim you make that I'm not following my own rules.

However, I am also sure: you won't acknowledge it when I do that--and probably won't acknowledge any piece of information that disproves something you say. Unless you agree to do that, you're not playing on an even field and your victim owes you nothing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 08, 2022, 05:14:30 PM
I am Zak's complete lack of self-awareness.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 05:18:19 PM
I am Zak's complete lack of self-awareness.

If you think you have a legitimate complaint you're free to post what that is and give proof.

"You refuse to talk like me" isn't one.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on August 08, 2022, 05:24:31 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start), I think the worm is definitely turning against people lobbing questionable accusations willy-nilly.

I will refer you to H.L. Mencken's quote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hold your nose if you have to, but don't ever forget the shitheads will happily stalk YOU after they collect Zak's scalp.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 05:27:50 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start),

Translaion "I, also, think calling people out for lying is bad."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 08, 2022, 05:43:41 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start), I think the worm is definitely turning against people lobbing questionable accusations willy-nilly.

I will refer you to H.L. Mencken's quote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hold your nose if you have to, but don't ever forget the shitheads will happily stalk YOU after they collect Zak's scalp.

Worth noting that I haven't weighed in on Mandy's claims, as I am reserving judgement for the outcome of the court case. I'm only talking about Zak being, well, Zak. This has nothing to do with any SJW shit.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 08, 2022, 05:46:59 PM
I was hoping you would make some of the comments about someone who 'lied' as you define it, even once, doesn't deserve even emergency medical care.  But just requiring an apology is much kinder. 

Quote
Specifically it was a situation where you said 'I would not do that' and then later you said 'I would do exactly that'. 
I don't know what the instance is but based solely on this description it could easily be a situation where I changed my mind. In order for there to be a lie you'd have to prove a lot more.

During a conversation regarding 'say yes' and asking for bonuses I said:

Sure, player A might say 'If I play a really stirring emotional passage on my ocarina can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes.  And if player B says, 'if I stick my tongue down her throat and get her really hot, can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes.

You responded:
Your fantasies about me are becoming increasingly bizarre.

In fact, you quoted me (http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=55466), so I know that you were responding to my comment. 

The very next day you said in response to a poster that asked about someone that wanted a diplomacy bonus without a musical instrument
Player B wants his character to be a diplomat, but not a musician.:
Zak S: Then there are a bajillion other things besides music this person can do to curry favor that would cost as much or less money and (in game and out) time to curry favor.
Source (http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=55466&start=225)

In my interactions with Zak S, he has frequently instructed me to 'watch every single one of his videos' to avoid making a mistake about his actual position, despite having his direct quotes to tell me what they are.  While I think that's an unreasonable burden, in that vein, This Thread (http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=54808) is fun - I explain why he is an asshole multiple times as I respond to his posts and comments. 


Quote
Additionally, I'm willing to provide links to other people providing evidence of times that you have lied - specifically an instance where a former friend and professional colleague catches you impersonating someone else.
Burden of proof is on you. Claiming something is proof is not the same as proof.

Colleagues have accused me of nearly everything under the sun.

False Machine (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2017/09/fuck-all-of-you.html)
Quote
You think its reasonable, and in fact necessary, to not just un-follow people, but to block them, and not just disagree with them socially but to do what you can to stop them making money. This certainly extends to refusing to work with them in any way. How much further it might extend is unknown.

You would not survive the rules you impose on others.

You were caught lying and pretending to be someone else online.






Quote
Finally, I'm willing to provide citations where you have demanded specific rules in an argument (ie, every comment must specifically refer to the intended audience, rather than assume that it refers specifically to the author) but then immediately proceeded to ignore the rule you demanded so you claimed things as 'universal' when they applied specifically to you. 

Provide it.

This will have to wait until tomorrow, but there are several instances in the threads linked previously.  Apologies if the quotes didn't nest properly. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 05:47:29 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start), I think the worm is definitely turning against people lobbing questionable accusations willy-nilly.

I will refer you to H.L. Mencken's quote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hold your nose if you have to, but don't ever forget the shitheads will happily stalk YOU after they collect Zak's scalp.

Worth noting that I haven't weighed in on Mandy's claims, as I am reserving judgement for the outcome of the court case. I'm only talking about Zak being, well, Zak. This has nothing to do with any SJW shit.

And worth noting you haven't actually explained why you have beef beyond "Zak thinks lying is bad and that's bad"
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 05:55:27 PM
I was hoping you would make some of the comments about someone who 'lied' as you define it, even once, doesn't deserve even emergency medical care.  But just requiring an apology is much kinder. 

Well usually they don't apologize so the practical question:

What is done to prevent them from causing more harm?

While it's a useful question, in practice people here can't even agree lying is bad, so a moot discussion on this forum.


Quote
Specifically it was a situation where you said 'I would not do that' and then later you said 'I would do exactly that'.....And if player B says, 'if I stick my tongue down her throat and get her really hot, can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes. [/i]

You responded:
Your fantasies about me are becoming increasingly bizarre.

In fact, you quoted me (http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=55466), so I know that you were responding to my comment. 

The very next day you said in response to a poster that asked about someone that wanted a diplomacy bonus without a musical instrument
Player B wants his character to be a diplomat, but not a musician.:
Zak S: Then there are a bajillion other things besides music this person can do to curry favor that would cost as much or less money and (in game and out) time to curry favor.
Source (http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=55466&start=225)

This would appear to have nothing to do with anything.

You have a bizarre fantasy about tongues being shoved in throats.

This has fuck-all to do with any alleged lie I told.

You should, however, publicly admit that you were wrong to say "'if I stick my tongue down her throat and get her really hot, can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes.
"

Since at no point did I claim that response would get that reaction to me and it would not, to this day.


Quote
False Machine (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2017/09/fuck-all-of-you.html)


Yeah that's not proof.

That's Patrick claiming that happened.

It's addressed multiple times including in the video posted in this thread:

Patrick didn't actually check the comments made by the account to see if there was any kind of impersonation, he just said it. In fact, Ettin said a similar thing, then got sued and had to admit I committed no abuse of any kind--so not only is this not true, I prevailed in a court case on account of how not true it is.


https://jrients.blogspot.com/2022/07/three-hours-fifty-eight-minutes-and.html

Quote


This will have to wait until tomorrow, but there are several instances in the threads linked previously.  Apologies if the quotes didn't nest properly.

There are, objectively, no instances.

You just lied about a bunch of shit and got caught.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 05:59:28 PM
You're wasting your time. You're Googling yourself silly, spending time formulating the argument, while the accused sex abuser just makes "snappy" one-line responses designed to get you to respond further. Accusations against him slide off like a water off a goose, unless you can pin him with a direct statement or question.

When talking to Zak S, the accused sexual offender just remember the attached image and just mentally super-impose his face on it:

And no, I'm not going to justify any claims that you're not an accused sex offender, Zak. Anybody can do a Google search and find out that your ex is counter-suing you for both defamation and sexual abuse.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 08, 2022, 06:00:27 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start), I think the worm is definitely turning against people lobbing questionable accusations willy-nilly.

I will refer you to H.L. Mencken's quote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hold your nose if you have to, but don't ever forget the shitheads will happily stalk YOU after they collect Zak's scalp.

Worth noting that I haven't weighed in on Mandy's claims, as I am reserving judgement for the outcome of the court case. I'm only talking about Zak being, well, Zak. This has nothing to do with any SJW shit.

And worth noting you haven't actually explained why you have beef beyond "Zak thinks lying is bad and that's bad"

Actually, I have, just not to your satisfaction, or the artificial standards you've attempted to impose in order to control the narrative. But then, conforming to either of those things was never my goal.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:02:14 PM
You're wasting your time. You're Googling yourself silly, spending time formulating the argument, while the accused sex abuser just makes "snappy" one-line responses designed to get you to respond further. Accusations against him slide off like a water off a goose, unless you can pin him with a direct statement or question.

When talking to Zak S, the accused sexual offender just remember the attached image and just mentally super-impose his face on it:

And no, I'm not going to justify any claims that you're not an accused sex offender, Zak. Anybody can do a Google search and find out that your ex is counter-suing you for both defamation and sexual abuse.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:03:02 PM
Quote
Actually, I have, just not to your satisfaction, or the artificial standards you've attempted to impose in order to control the narrative.

You can't quote an instance of me doing something bad.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 06:07:05 PM
I can't believe I and Tubesock Army are on the same side. I feel unclean.

It is pretty wild that Zak S is accused of being a sex offender. It's wild that his ex, is suing him for being a sex abuser/offender and defamation. Just wild.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:12:38 PM
I can't believe I and Tubesock Army are on the same side. I feel unclean.

It is pretty wild that Zak S is accused of being a sex offender. It's wild that his ex, is suing him for being a sex abuser/offender and defamation. Just wild.

Fake accusations on the internet are pretty normal.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 06:14:40 PM
lol

lmao


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on August 08, 2022, 06:16:51 PM
Like: you spreading misinformation doesn't change my heartbeat. This is the job. This is my life now: documenting the harassment, fact-checking the people lying.

I see stuff, I screencap it, I index the file in case I need it later.

This seems like an incredibly sad way to live one's life.  I'm reminded of the Shelter Skelter story from the old Twilight Zone where a survivalist who's built a huge bomb shelter winds up surviving a nuclear accident, thinking the Ruskies have dropped the bombs he stays holed up in his shelter and becomes completely unhinged, thinking rescuers are likely pillagers and refusing to come out.

Then you're being too dramatic and thinking about it wrong.

I don't know you, so maybe you're loling it up having a grand time arguing with strangers on the Internet and filing random peoples' comments in case it goes to a courtroom at some future date, but that sounds miserable to me and the sort of thing that would make me rethink a lot about my life and maybe schedule some time with my therapist about lasting trauma from the fallout with your ex.  But if this is a better time for you than doing art and streaming games with porn actors for money, then hey, you do you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:25:08 PM

I don't know you, so maybe you're loling it up ...

You're not understanding it.

Working in any kind of entertainment (which is often fun) means that you are going to have to do legal stuff and keep track of stalkers and trolls in case they become dangerous.

You do both things. Without even going into my real job as a painter even just game designers --all of them get harassed pretty much constantly. You either take steps or you don't get to do the job for long.

It's a trade-off, it's the way the business works. If that would send you off the deep-end: try not to do anything that the internet takes an interest in.

That's how it's always been.

It shouldn't be that way, but so long as lying all the time about people is just lulz that's how it will be.

Personally I think trolls kind of like it that way, a lot of them have admitted that they're frustrated with their lives and see people who get even tiny game-designer-level recognition as bigwigs to be Take Down. So they dogpile.

It's stupid but it's a price you pay for doing fun things for a living.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 08, 2022, 06:26:45 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start), I think the worm is definitely turning against people lobbing questionable accusations willy-nilly.

I will refer you to H.L. Mencken's quote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hold your nose if you have to, but don't ever forget the shitheads will happily stalk YOU after they collect Zak's scalp.

You saw what he did when Jeff jumped to deffend him?

I won't join the woke mob, I will also not do what Zak wants and form a mob to go after anyone he thinks is talking ill about him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 06:29:53 PM
Fun things like getting counter-sued for defamation and sexual abuse?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:31:21 PM
Quote
You saw what he did when Jeff jumped to deffend him?

I won't join the woke mob, I will also not do what Zak wants and form a mob to go after anyone he thinks is talking ill about him.
I literally just said if a dude thinks I lied he should say what I lied about.

That isn't asking anyone to "form a mob"

That isn't about " talking ill about him" that's about lying.

Also: you said you were going to ignore me. But you're still talking about me.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 08, 2022, 06:32:15 PM
Fun things like getting counter-sued for defamation and sexual abuse?

No, that's the job part, not the fun part. Please try to keep up.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 06:37:52 PM
I do not need to keep up. As someone who practices physiognomy, I can tell all that I need about you, via your sloped brow, small eyes, and large ears. If it was up to me, I would sentence you based on your physiognomic traits. Alas, I am not - but I will caution the users. Zak S has the physiognomic make up of an immature pest. The arch of his brow is not low enough to be criminal, but enough to make a nuisance of himself.

Truly, physiognomy is a lost art.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: brettmb on August 08, 2022, 06:47:25 PM
I do not need to keep up. As someone who practices physiognomy, I can tell all that I need about you, via your sloped brow, small eyes, and large ears. If it was up to me, I would sentence you based on your physiognomic traits. Alas, I am not - but I will caution the users. Zak S has the physiognomic make up of an immature pest. The arch of his brow is not low enough to be criminal, but enough to make a nuisance of himself.

Truly, physiognomy is a lost art.
You just sound racist to me.  EDIT: I meant douchey

I’m moving this thread to Pundit’s forum. He can take it from there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 08, 2022, 06:55:23 PM
WELL NOW IT'S NOT FUN ANYMORE!!!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: THE_Leopold on August 08, 2022, 08:41:22 PM
The only winning move is Not to Play.
--Wargames
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on August 08, 2022, 08:59:38 PM
The only winning move is Not to Play.
--Wargames

Greetings!

Exactly, Leopold!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on August 09, 2022, 12:14:12 AM
I do not need to keep up. As someone who practices physiognomy, I can tell all that I need about you, via your sloped brow, small eyes, and large ears. If it was up to me, I would sentence you based on your physiognomic traits. Alas, I am not - but I will caution the users. Zak S has the physiognomic make up of an immature pest. The arch of his brow is not low enough to be criminal, but enough to make a nuisance of himself.

Truly, physiognomy is a lost art.
You just sound racist to me.  EDIT: I meant douchey

I’m moving this thread to Pundit’s forum. He can take it from there.

Fair enough. Whatever this thread is, it's not really about RPGs anymore, if it ever was.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on August 09, 2022, 01:38:51 PM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start),

Translaion "I, also, think calling people out for lying is bad."
Believe whatever you like.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2022, 11:50:11 AM
As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start),

Translaion "I, also, think calling people out for lying is bad."
Believe whatever you like.

His reading comprehension (or lack off) strikes again, here you are, saying people should stick to innocent until proven guilty no matter how much anyone might dislike Zak, and he turns that into you saying exactly the opposite...

Which is why I put him on the ignore list and now I don't have to read his drivel unless someone else quotes him.

He's such a pretentious, condescending, smug, cunt that he will burn any good will and all bridges even with those that, disagreeing with him, were willing to deffend him, and so his "I'm alone against the world" mentality will become a self fulfilling profecy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 10, 2022, 12:16:28 PM
Quote
His reading comprehension (or lack off) strikes again, here you are, saying people should stick to innocent until proven guilty no matter how much anyone might dislike Zak, and he turns that into you saying exactly the opposite...

He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

Quote
Which is why I put him on the ignore list and now I don't have to read his drivel unless someone else quotes him.

If you want to ignore me, then you should start ignoring me.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 10, 2022, 05:32:14 PM
He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

I'm not Tubesock Army, or Geekybugle, or any number of other people that have called you an ass, but I did call you an ass and I don't feel that I've taken the appropriate amount of time to explain why you're an ass. 

Now, for normal people with normal intelligence speaking their native language it's usually enough to point out when someone is doing something anti-social and say 'what an asshole' and everyone around with functioning normal intelligence can agree with the sentiment. 

Saying an unpopular thing doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  Saying something rude also doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  But tone definitely matters - if you're extremely polite even when you're disagreeing with someone they probably WON'T call you an asshole.  So let's dive in - what, specifically, makes Zak S. an asshole - in fact - so much so that I'm willing to spend precious minutes of my life that I won't get back calling him one to his face? 

I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds. 

Of course, it's not just limited to demanding clarification.  The same also applies regarding standards of evidence.  You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference.  Even in a court of law (as you should NO DOUBT BE FAMILIAR BY NOW) witnesses can detail what they've seen as well as the inferences they made.  If asked whether the man walking down the street with a shotgun APPEARED hostile, a reasonable person could conclude that the act of walking with a loaded weapon pointed at bystanders meets that definition - you don't HAVE to be able to read the person's mind or attribute a direct quote of hostile intent to make the inference.  Since you're NOT a dummy (even though you ARE an asshole) you can't pretend that people, usually with high accuracy, can evaluate the demeanor and positions of those they interact with.

In this regard, having different criteria for 'accuracy' also applies.  In a conversation about granting bonuses to a specific skill I provided an exemplar of the type of argument that a player would use that was consistent with the types of things you said.  Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).  A normal person would have said something like 'I do like to say yes, but that specific example would be offensive to my players, so that's not one I would grant.  Instead I would suggest something that the character COULD do that would be more acceptable to get that same bonus'.  But later you said that a 'bajillion' things could grant that bonus.  That's of course a figurative phrase.  Can you literally think of a million or a billion things that could grant a bonus (obviously excluding a kiss)?  Of course not.  But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar. 

When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors, that makes you an asshole.  For myself, spending time with assholes is something I generally try to avoid.  I certainly never seek you out, Zak S.  But when you take the trouble to cross my path, coming to the places I hang out, and you ask why people think you're an asshole, I think you deserve an answer.  And because you make the lives of the people you interact with worse just by being you, I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.  It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it. 

You're an asshole. 

But you can always make the choice to stop. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2022, 06:06:36 PM
He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.
<sniped an excellent explanation>
It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it. 

You're an asshole. 

But you can always make the choice to stop.

Calling X an asshole (not an ass, that's a different type of animal) is usually a matter of opinion. Notice how his lack of reading comprehension leads him to assert things that weren't said? What do we (in polite society) call someone who asserts falsehoods? A liar?

By my counting, including me he's turned against him 3 people in this very thread by doing everything you just explained and then some.

I'll repeat myself: He's a pretentious, condescending & smug cunt.

But he could always make the choice to stop being one. "An error repeated is a decision" Therefore I must conclude he's like that by choice.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 10, 2022, 06:57:14 PM
I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds. 

That is a bad thing to do, but I didn't do that.

Simple example:

You lied about some bizarre thing involving you shoving your tongue down someone's throat.

I said you did.

That's that.

Then you claimed this was somehow an example of me lying.


Which is much more serious: you're accusing an adult and a stranger of dishonesty.

Quote
  You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference. 

You are dishonest so you left out the obvious point: everything that y'all have ever seen me do is online. So your claims I did anything bad must to be based on that.

If you think you saw me at a Dodgers game and I did a bad thing so it's not recorded, you should simply say that.

But you didn't: you're talking about online stuff that's recorded and googlable and you don't have it because you're lying.

It is 100% disingenuous to pretend there's something wrong with asking for proof when accused of hypocrisy dishonesty, etc. in a recorded situation.
 
Quote
  Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).

Then you should've just admitted that and moved on instead of lying.

With that clarification you would be admitting good faith and we could keep talking.

Quote
But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar. 

No, simply saying a thing that's not true and knowing it makes you a liar.

Quote
When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors...

At this point you'd have to somehow make the argument that there's a reasonable standard of "condescending and rude" that somehow I fail and you (and lots of folks you pal around with) do not. It's child's play to point out all the violations of any basic standard of "polite and not condescending" yall have committed.

You can't make that argument at all.

Quote
certainly never seek you out, Zak S.

Then you didn't have to post in the thread.

I am only here to fact check things y'all said.

Quote
I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.
Since your reasons are bad it's actually nice to (once again) be given the opportunity to demonstrate how thin they are to the lurkers and to all the poor legal aids on the opposition side who have to read through these threads looking for evidence of me doing anything actually bad.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 10, 2022, 06:58:42 PM
Quote
Calling X an asshole (not an ass, that's a different type of animal) is usually a matter of opinion.

Sure but it's 100% legitimate to ask why someone drew that conclusion.

Again, the kitchen-table test.

If you're in a real life situation and you all someone an asshole and can't explain why at all, you're the asshole.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 10, 2022, 08:57:53 PM
No one owes you an explanation for why they don't like you. Sure, you are free to ask. But sometimes, the fact that you have to ask why at all is part of the problem - it can show a lack of self-awareness and a lack of empathy for others. Especially if you're not asking so that you can consider whether or how your behavior has affected others, but rather so that you can "debunk" the other person's position. People have the right not to like you, me, or anyone else, for whatever reason they choose. It's not your place to decide whether other people's feelings are valid or not. Your ridiculous sense of entitlement is one of the more irritating things about you.

I first encountered you elsewhere, before the Mandy stuff. When I saw how you behaved, I quickly formed the opinion that you were, at best, a manipulative narcissist, and at worst, an abuser. When the Mandy stuff dropped, I wasn't surprised. And though I am reserving judgement on that issue for the courts, it really won't affect my opinion of you much, either way.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on August 10, 2022, 09:36:59 PM
He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

I'm not Tubesock Army, or Geekybugle, or any number of other people that have called you an ass, but I did call you an ass and I don't feel that I've taken the appropriate amount of time to explain why you're an ass. 

Now, for normal people with normal intelligence speaking their native language it's usually enough to point out when someone is doing something anti-social and say 'what an asshole' and everyone around with functioning normal intelligence can agree with the sentiment. 

Saying an unpopular thing doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  Saying something rude also doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  But tone definitely matters - if you're extremely polite even when you're disagreeing with someone they probably WON'T call you an asshole.  So let's dive in - what, specifically, makes Zak S. an asshole - in fact - so much so that I'm willing to spend precious minutes of my life that I won't get back calling him one to his face? 

I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds. 

Of course, it's not just limited to demanding clarification.  The same also applies regarding standards of evidence.  You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference.  Even in a court of law (as you should NO DOUBT BE FAMILIAR BY NOW) witnesses can detail what they've seen as well as the inferences they made.  If asked whether the man walking down the street with a shotgun APPEARED hostile, a reasonable person could conclude that the act of walking with a loaded weapon pointed at bystanders meets that definition - you don't HAVE to be able to read the person's mind or attribute a direct quote of hostile intent to make the inference.  Since you're NOT a dummy (even though you ARE an asshole) you can't pretend that people, usually with high accuracy, can evaluate the demeanor and positions of those they interact with.

In this regard, having different criteria for 'accuracy' also applies.  In a conversation about granting bonuses to a specific skill I provided an exemplar of the type of argument that a player would use that was consistent with the types of things you said.  Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).  A normal person would have said something like 'I do like to say yes, but that specific example would be offensive to my players, so that's not one I would grant.  Instead I would suggest something that the character COULD do that would be more acceptable to get that same bonus'.  But later you said that a 'bajillion' things could grant that bonus.  That's of course a figurative phrase.  Can you literally think of a million or a billion things that could grant a bonus (obviously excluding a kiss)?  Of course not.  But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar. 

When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors, that makes you an asshole.  For myself, spending time with assholes is something I generally try to avoid.  I certainly never seek you out, Zak S.  But when you take the trouble to cross my path, coming to the places I hang out, and you ask why people think you're an asshole, I think you deserve an answer.  And because you make the lives of the people you interact with worse just by being you, I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.  It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it. 

You're an asshole. 

But you can always make the choice to stop.

Greetings!

DeadDMwalking! You know, while you and I may often disagree, especially on politics, with this here thoughtful and strong post, well, deadDMwalking, it is inspiring and a thing of beauty. I appreciate your integrity, maturity, and laser-sharp commentary that you have made here.

ON POINT, deadDMwalking!

I hope you are well!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 02:45:08 AM
No one owes you an explanation for why they don't like you. Sure, you are free to ask. But sometimes, the fact that you have to ask why at all is part of the problem - it can show a lack of self-awareness and a lack of empathy for others.

You can think whatever you want but there's nothing really accomplished by saying in a public forum you don't like someone without saying why.

You're just wasting everyone's time when you do that.

Quote
I quickly formed the opinion that you were, at best, a manipulative narcissist, and at worst, an abuser.

Yes and you were (objectively, clinically) incorrect to think that and finding out why you decided that will help you when and if you get therapy for that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 02:46:38 AM
....ON POINT, deadDMwalking!...

Plussing a post that's already been answered is weird because it means you don't really have any rational take on the problems point out with the post.

You don't have to make sense but when you don't someone needs to point it out so I am.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 11, 2022, 10:45:40 AM
....ON POINT, deadDMwalking!...

Plussing a post that's already been answered is weird because it means you don't really have any rational take on the problems point out with the post.

You don't have to make sense but when you don't someone needs to point it out so I am.

Responding to a post is not the same as rebutting it.  No where in your response did you say that you treat people with reciprocity - effectively you did a combination of saying that I was wrong to come to the conclusions that I did and that I am the one lying.  Well, Karen, that's the thing - people who are assholes always feel that they're justified in the moment, but the reason people come to a consensus opinion is that some actions only become unreasonable as it impacts everyone else around them.  For example, ordering 150 venti white chocolate mochas (hot) from Starbucks is something that you absolutely can do.  But if you do it during the morning rush in the drive-thru and refuse to move from the window until your order is complete, people will call you an asshole.  Please understand, that is not saying that anyone did anything ILLEGAL, but it still makes you an asshole.  So why?  That brings us to the next point - consideration

This is closely related to reciprocity - if you talk about treating people the way you want to be treated you probably are hitting both consideration and reciprocity.  But a lot of wise people say rather than treating people the way YOU want to be treated, you should treat people the way THEY want to be treated.  That's consideration in a nutshell. 

As far as how you show a lack of consideration, it shows primarily when you try to tell people that they're wrong to hold an opinion. As someone that has managed people, I understand that rather than addressing ATTITUDE, it's best to focus on BEHAVIOR.  Telling Shark that it's weird he agreed with a post that I wrote after it had been 'answered' shows a lack of consideration.  Essentially, you're implying that his ability to come to reasonable positions based on data is suspect.  Telling people how they think or SHOULD THINK is a level of hubris that rises to the level of 'asshole' almost automatically. 

And let's be clear - there are a lot of people that hold opinions that I think are crazy, stupid, and wrong.  I do spend time trying to provide evidence and cogent arguments in support of my positions - I want to convince people to accept my positions.  But I don't try to pretend that they're automatically idiots for holding a position different than my own.  Not only do they have other evidence that I have to review and engage with, they may value my evidence differently. 

It's clear that you value your own words - you pretend that they're the final word on any subject - but not everyone else feels that way, nor should they.  There are people that will dismiss you because of your occupation, the quality of your artistic work, the cut of your hair - and that can feel unfair - but just because those people exist doesn't mean that everyone else is dismissing you shallow reasons.  Some people engage with you and your ideas, give them a fair chance, and still come to the conclusion that you're an asshole.  What's STRIKING is how many people like your artistic output and STILL think you're an asshole.  People are weird in that they'll go to great lengths to defend terrible people that produce works that they like - when even fans won't defend your behavior that should be a sign that you're well beyond what normal people accept as 'normal behavior'. 

So for myself, I still think you're an asshole.  I hope you keep talking and responding, because the more you do, I think the more clear you make that for everyone else reading along.  That means less work for me trying to review conversations across dozens of pages that are impossible to easily quote and risk losing vital context. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 01:06:53 PM

Responding to a post is not the same as rebutting it.

It is in this case because I demonstrated your ideas are not valid.

Quote
No where in your response did you say that you treat people with reciprocity - effectively you did a combination of saying that I was wrong to come to the conclusions that I did and that I am the one lying. 

Those are more important things to me and to any reasonable person.

I didn't bother to chase down your logic about reciprocity, it is much less important than pointing out to readers that you obviously lied and came to false conclusions.


Quote
you try to tell people that they're wrong to hold an opinion

Since I haven't done that it's a moot point.

-I have pointed out factual errors
-I have pointed out that a given individuals opinion is not based on anything that has any particular good reason to be communicated to others

Like when a antisemite bicycles past a synagogue and yells "You guys suck!" it's legit to point out that public expression of opinion is based in how they're bad. It helps the public behave in an appropriate way toward the antisemite.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 11, 2022, 03:38:54 PM
Only an asshole would demand proof that they are an asshole.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 03:43:17 PM
Only an asshole would demand proof that they are an asshole.

Perhaps but I didn't do that, I asked a super-normal thing:

"What made you decide this person was an asshole?"

People ask that all the time, for lots of reasons--including as a way of evaluating whether the person talking is reasonable enough for their judgment to matter.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Franky on August 11, 2022, 05:42:41 PM
An amusing book, https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/0804171351 on the subject of assholery.  I still prefer the succinct definition, "A person who demands that all social interaction happen on their terms."  (from a fellow named Ta-Nehisi Coates)

ETA: removed the ad hominem stuff.  Don't want to go down that road.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 07:01:52 PM
An amusing book, https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/0804171351 on the subject of assholery.  I still prefer the succinct definition, "A person who demands that all social interaction happen on their terms."  (from a fellow named Ta-Nehisi Coates)


I've never done that--in fact I mostly ignore the social interaction around here

Ta-Nehisi Coates has also written about how lying about people is bad and that there's nothing wrong with authors saying you shouldn't do it.

He's a nice guy--he wrote about reparations, did the Black Panther comics for a while and grew up near me. He played DnD too.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 07:48:59 PM
One of the nice things about the legal process is that through discovery (see: My Cousin Vinnie if you don't know what that is) and other investigations you get to see what liars actually say to each other about lying--iike you get to read their emails and text messages to each other about lying and all that. It's always the same story every time in every suit:

People lie because it's the most effective way for most people to do material harm on social media to a target. That's also why they do things that are like lying (make misleading statements, make claims that make someone look bad without checking first, etc).

However "I'm going to defend lying" or "I am indifferent to if my friend lies because we're friends" aren't comfortable rhetorical positions for the liar.

So they pointedly ignore the issue--factuality, which is so often frustratingly objective and measurable--in favor of something vaguer that is opinion-based and pretend the thing is about that, rewriting the issue on those terms.

If you call someone out for lying about something important you might be called an asshole, but if you are the liar you are definitely an asshole. But the real issue is: you lied.

So just as someone saying something antisemitic and getting caught might say "You're unamerican!" because it's easier to be vague about what's "American" people who are caught lying say "You're an asshole" because it's way easier to endlessly be vague about who is and isn't an asshole.

The issue is lying and all the things like lying. That's the important thing iand the one that's had the most impact on all the things people don't like int he RPG community and everything else is trying to substitute in some other word to avoid talking about the important thing (lying).
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 11, 2022, 08:36:59 PM
Everyone Who Doesn't Like Me Is A Liar
(A Child's Guide To Online Interaction)

by Zak S.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 11, 2022, 08:45:51 PM
Everyone Who Doesn't Like Me Is A Liar
(A Child's Guide To Online Interaction)

by Zak S.

No just the ones who are lying.

You're doing the thing I described right now.

You got caught lying here: https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/255/ now you're trying to change the subject so it isn't about you lying.

But you lied. (Since I didn't manipulate, bully or troll anyone.)

You got caught lying.

You got asked for proof to make sure.

You didn't have it.

Because you're lying.

And now you are extremely motivated to change the subject away from how you lied about a thing.

Because defending lying is not easy for you.

But you lied.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 12, 2022, 09:11:56 AM
I love that this conversation is continuing.  The more you assert that you can't possibly be an asshole the more you show everyone watching how you're an asshole.  The reason that I am amused is that your apparent need to be liked and respected indicates a deep-seated insecurity.  Watching you try to project an image of calm, cool, superiority while trying to hide your desperation. 

Your focus on 'lying' and your insistence on defining it as 'anything my opponent says without sufficient evidence based exclusively on my demands' is of course one of your trademarks and an odious quality.  You're trying to trick your opponent into either defending lying (which in reasonable and polite society is often done - but that's the trap isn't it - to admit that telling people you like their outfit even if you don't automatically makes everything else you say categorically false) or to ignore your demand to prove their point (creating a slow-motion gish-gallop where you claim to have rebutted things fully when you have not, refuse to quote yourself and instead demand people review a corpus of work including videos, etc). 

One thing that I'm aware of is that tone doesn't transmit well online.  But having seen you called out for tone repeatedly, along with the smugness and condescension, I think it's fair to go back to one of your former friends:

Quote
Even *just* including the qualities you would admit to, because you think they are good, the aggression and the binary mercilesness, those alone would be enough to reasonably call someone a dick.

If we include the recursive arguments, the shaming, the sniping and stalking, then it becomes completely reasonable for someone to say 'Zak Smith is a Dick' - if you take that to a lawyer as a libel case then they wouldn't accept it.

Source (http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2017/09/fuck-all-of-you.html)

Personally, I think asshole is more descriptive than dick.  Fortunately for me, I remain free to assert that I think you're an asshole; I remain free to assert that nothing you've said in this thread would even qualify as an attempt to convince me otherwise.  Being charitable, everything you've said really amounts to 'poisoning the well' - casting doubt on my ability to be honest and forthright thus casting doubt on my conclusions.  Of course, that can only work if I was trying to convince anyone else of anything.  I expect that other people will have come to the conclusion that you're an asshole, but not because of what I said.  I just want you, Zak S., to KNOW that I think you're an asshole.  Since you're so insistent that we're honest with each other, and withholding relevant information could be seen as lying, I just felt it was very important to make sure you knew how I feel. 

You are toxic.  I, personally, am in a very good place.  As a result, I feel that I can address you without feeling demeaned or sullied by your well documented argumentative tells.  I'm would not be surprised if you would like to destroy me (or see me come to ruin) because of your spiteful and vengeful ways (see: asshole).  I get the feeling that you want to intimidate people from stating their opinions when you feel that they're negative.  You're probably much more familiar than I am with libel and slander.  But I feel confident that if giving a deposition in court I could make a credible argument that you act like an asshole and that someone that acts like an asshole is, in fact, an asshole.  While I might be mistaken, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people want to tell you that you're an asshole, but they don't want to deal with you and your scorched earth reactions after they do.  Whether those people exist or not, I'm willing to tell you what I think if for no other reason than it needs to be said. 

I know that you've had conversations multiple times along these lines, and that the behavior hasn't changed.  I do want people to make up their own minds - just because I don't like you doesn't mean that you might not be someone else's best friend in the world - but I also think that people deserve a warning when someone's behavior rises to a level that can be dangerous to others. 

My advice to anyone who happens on this thread is that they should avoid you, Zak S.  That's not a decision I want to make for them, but I think between us we've certainly given them enough reason to be cautious.  So, mission accomplished. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 12, 2022, 09:53:25 AM
Everyone Who Doesn't Like Me Is A Liar
(A Child's Guide To Online Interaction)

by Zak S.

No just the ones who are lying.

You're doing the thing I described right now.

You got caught lying here: https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/255/ now you're trying to change the subject so it isn't about you lying.

But you lied. (Since I didn't manipulate, bully or troll anyone.)

You got caught lying.

You got asked for proof to make sure.

You didn't have it.

Because you're lying.

And now you are extremely motivated to change the subject away from how you lied about a thing.

Because defending lying is not easy for you.

But you lied.

Your attempts to impose terms and conditions on the arguments of others, as you have done in this thread and elsewhere, are manipulative. So are your laughable attempts at armchair psychoanalysis.

Your constant and escalating accusations of lying, leveled at anyone who fails to fall for the above manipulation, is bullying, as is your insistence that your critics in the Demon City Kickstarter sign affidavits. Same with your strange habit, here and elsewhere, of going after people who "like" or quote posts you find objectionable.

Your "I'm just trying to get to THE TRUTH here!" is classic concern trolling, "I'm just asking questions" is Something Awful levels of transparent BS.

There you have it. Manipulation, bullying, trolling. I don't expect you to agree, but I'm also fine with being disagreed with, because I'm not Zak S., and also because I think that you yourself have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated the veracity of my arguments in this thread. I won't bother dredging up any of the many examples littering this thread and every other corner of the internet you've graced with your presence, because I know that the truth of my statements is self-evident to most of the people who are reading this. I also have no desire or intention to perform for you, Zak, according to your manipulative wishes. If it makes you feel better to tell yourself (and make no mistake, Zak, you're the only one falling for your BS here) that "According to my highly scientific formula, X-Y=my critics are all liars", well, you go right ahead. Just know that the overwhelming majority of people here and elsewhere are not falling for it.

Like deadDMwalking, I enjoy the fact that the more you go on, the more evidence of your assholery is scattered across the internet. Your posts are the brightly colored octopuses of the internet, a jarring, unmistakable signal warning others to stay away from the extreme toxicity contained therein. I honestly believe that baiting you into posting further (and, man, you are like Pavlov's fucking dog, there) does a public service, as it allows everyone to see what a manipulative, bullying troll you really are.

So, please, Zak, by all means, continue. I'm sure everyone here is on the verge of being convinced by your masterfully worded arguments! I'm sure the collective internet is this close to changing its mind about you, and welcoming you back into the hobby with open arms, if not a parade! You're almost there, Zak, don't quit now!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on August 12, 2022, 10:08:40 AM
Everyone Who Doesn't Like Me Is A Liar
(A Child's Guide To Online Interaction)

by Zak S.

No just the ones who are lying.

You're doing the thing I described right now.

You got caught lying here: https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/255/ now you're trying to change the subject so it isn't about you lying.

But you lied. (Since I didn't manipulate, bully or troll anyone.)

You got caught lying.

You got asked for proof to make sure.

You didn't have it.

Because you're lying.

And now you are extremely motivated to change the subject away from how you lied about a thing.

Because defending lying is not easy for you.

But you lied.

Your attempts to impose terms and conditions on the arguments of others, as you have done in this thread and elsewhere, are manipulative. So are your laughable attempts at armchair psychoanalysis.

Your constant and escalating accusations of lying, leveled at anyone who fails to fall for the above manipulation, is bullying, as is your insistence that your critics in the Demon City Kickstarter sign affidavits. Same with your strange habit, here and elsewhere, of going after people who "like" or quote posts you find objectionable.

Your "I'm just trying to get to THE TRUTH here!" is classic concern trolling, "I'm just asking questions" is Something Awful levels of transparent BS.

There you have it. Manipulation, bullying, trolling. I don't expect you to agree, but I'm also fine with being disagreed with, because I'm not Zak S., and also because I think that you yourself have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated the veracity of my arguments in this thread. I won't bother dredging up any of the many examples littering this thread and every other corner of the internet you've graced with your presence, because I know that the truth of my statements is self-evident to most of the people who are reading this. I also have no desire or intention to perform for you, Zak, according to your manipulative wishes. If it makes you feel better to tell yourself (and make no mistake, Zak, you're the only one falling for your BS here) that "According to my highly scientific formula, X-Y=my critics are all liars", well, you go right ahead. Just know that the overwhelming majority of people here and elsewhere are not falling for it.

Like deadDMwalking, I enjoy the fact that the more you go on, the more evidence of your assholery is scattered across the internet. Your posts are the brightly colored octopuses of the internet, a jarring, unmistakable signal warning others to stay away from the extreme toxicity contained therein. I honestly believe that baiting you into posting further (and, man, you are like Pavlov's fucking dog, there) does a public service, as it allows everyone to see what a manipulative, bullying troll you really are.

So, please, Zak, by all means, continue. I'm sure everyone here is on the verge of being convinced by your masterfully worded arguments! I'm sure the collective internet is this close to changing its mind about you, and welcoming you back into the hobby with open arms, if not a parade! You're almost there, Zak, don't quit now!

Greetings!

*Laughing* Fucking COMEDY GOLD!!!

I almost choked on my coffee from laughing so much. ;D

Excellent commentary, Tubesock.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 12, 2022, 02:36:23 PM
I love that this conversation is continuing.  The more you assert that you can't possibly be an asshole... t

You're doing the thing again. You're changing the subject from all the things you lied about into a bunch of insults you want to call me.

It's not a strange thing to not liking it when people lie, it's not a trick to say "please stop lying" it doesn't require elaborate pop psychological explanations.

Lying about people is bad. That's all.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 12, 2022, 02:47:12 PM

Your attempts to impose terms and conditions on the arguments of others, as you have done in this thread and elsewhere, are manipulative.

Everyone in this thread (and most threads where there is a disagreement) is talking about how they think other people should behave.

Straightforwardly announcing what you think is good is not "manipulation". Manipulation involves hidden intent.

I am going to a place on the internet where misinformation is being spread and fact-checking it for any underinformed member of the public who might stumble across it. I haven't claimed otherwise and you can't even describe why this would be implausible or require some other, secret, motivation.

Quote
So are your laughable attempts at armchair psychoanalysis.

What is the secret intent?

There isn't one. I am simply describing the only reasons I can see why you'd say that pointing out people lying is bad is...bad.

Quote
Your constant and escalating accusations of lying,

Again I am straightforwardly identifying misinformation. That isn't secretly trying to get you to do something.

Quote
...is bullying///

Bullying requires the bully have more power in the situation than who they're interacting with, and everyone here has the same power here: to type.

Unless you're saying I am telekinetically shoving you in a locker by typing, I can't bully you or anyone else here.

In fact, many of the troll posts here--including yours--are announcing your excitement and satisfaction with the fact that there is no mechanism by which I can coerce anything out of you here. That is: announcing that y'all cannot be bullied here.

It makes no sense to simultaneously announce how happy you are that no-one can coerce you into changing your behavior and claiming they are bullying you at the same time.

But even if it did, I still am using no power to do anything to you but type.

Quote
Your "I'm just trying to get to THE TRUTH here!" is classic concern trolling, "I'm just asking questions" is Something Awful levels of transparent BS.

Unless you are trying to get to the truth. Otherwise literally all science, journalism, academic study, etc is "concern trolling" as they involve asking questions to try to get to the truth

Since I am trying to get to the truth, this makes no sense.

Luckily, we tested this: I successfully sued a Something Awful troll for lying.

Quote
I'm also fine with being disagreed with

Then you can stop responding.

Quote
. I honestly believe that baiting

So your goal is to be a master baiter. Ok.
-
-
-


So there it is straight up. You're lying. You got caught again.

Attaching random negative descriptors to random straw descriptions doesn't change the fact you lied.

Believing the lying you're doing to be popular with readers doesn't change the fact you lied.

Announcing you are successfully manipulating the person you're lying about into answering against their best interest ("baiting") doesn't change the fact you lied.

All of this appears to be based in a weird belief (or desire to claim) that fact-checking is not good or useful in itself and so the behavior requires elaborate trolly explanations. It doesn't.

That's what's important to me--that people reading know you are lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 12, 2022, 03:57:20 PM
... as is your insistence that your critics in the Demon City Kickstarter sign affidavits....


This is another lie you told.

I have never insisted that my critics in the Demon City Kickstarter do anything with affidavits.

Your lie appears to refer to the following situation:

1. A liar (will claim serious wrongdoing on my part

2. They also claim they're motivated by a desire to help the alleged victims

So I prove they are lying in an easy and immediate way:

I say that if they know I am guilty of serious wrongdoing then they can, if they want, help the alleged victims by signing an affidavit under penalty of perjury saying they know I did this or that bad thing since I am currently in legal proceedings with them.

They never do, which proves they are lying.

I certainly do not insist they sign anything, since them not signing the document proves they are lying.

First definition google brings up"insist: demand something forcefully, not accepting refusal."--refusal is absolutely and entirely an option in this case, and one that is acceptable to me.

Now, if things follow the usual pattern, comes the part where you go "But I, a crazed troll, am not sympathetic to you, nor are my crazed troll friends! Therefore you have no self-awareness and it is laughable that you yet post!"

Anyway the important thing is you're lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 12, 2022, 04:04:01 PM
Oh, hi, Zak. Having a normal one, I see...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 12, 2022, 04:06:07 PM
Oh, hi, Zak. Having a normal one, I see...

Luckily the translation of that's already posted:

Quote
"But I, a crazed troll, am not sympathetic to you, nor are my crazed troll friends! Therefore you have no self-awareness and it is laughable that you yet post!"
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 12, 2022, 04:12:39 PM
"From Hell's heart, I post at thee!"

-Zak S.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 12, 2022, 04:13:28 PM
"From Hell's heart, I post at thee!"

-Zak S.

I'm just here to fact check.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 12, 2022, 04:16:15 PM
"From Hell's heart, I post at thee!"

-Zak S.

I'm just here to fact check.

(https://img.fae.ro/04def1.jpeg)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 14, 2022, 12:50:41 PM
"From Hell's heart, I post at thee!"

-Zak S.

I'm just here to fact check.

Clearly that's not true.  You're here to continue being an asshole. 

One way you act like an asshole is insisting that someone's point has been addressed or rebutted when it has not.  Since you don't respond to the full point and/or have multiple posts in a row, it might seem to some people that you've addressed everything, but anyone that reads carefully will see that's it's just sham slight of hand.  Combined with your puerile need to get the last word it can be exhausting to keep pointing out that someone's original point still stands. 

So new week, new attempt to do that - I still think you're an asshole.  I think that our online interaction shows that you're an asshole. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 14, 2022, 03:26:57 PM

Clearly that's not true.  You're here to continue being an asshole. 

You're doing this again. I already described it:
Quote
So just as someone saying something antisemitic and getting caught might say "You're unamerican!" because it's easier to be vague about what's "American" people who are caught lying say "You're an asshole" because it's way easier to endlessly be vague about who is and isn't an asshole.

Quote
One way you act like an asshole is insisting that someone's point has been addressed or rebutted when it has not. 

Anyone who really thinks you had a meaningful point can reread the thread and fins out that isn't true.

You got caught lying lots of times in a row. You didn't apologize or admit it and instead are trying to change the subject. Doing that is like randomly kicking a dog in the face--once you do that, your "points" you think you're making don't matter to any rational person.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 14, 2022, 09:44:46 PM
Zah somehow thinks that "nuh-uh" is proof of something

lol
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 14, 2022, 10:07:50 PM
Zah somehow thinks that "nuh-uh" is proof of something

lol

You are lying again.

Here's the proof:

Throughout the thread, when the burden of proof;s on me I posted it and when the burden of proof was on someone else I requested it and they failed to provide it (and usually changed the subject).

If you want to keep pretending you're not lying, then the thread's right in front of you as you read, you can easily click back and find an example to prove me wrong.

But you won't because you're lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 14, 2022, 11:04:36 PM
Actually I posted examples in this thread of your manipulative, bullying trolling. Why are you lying, Zak?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 14, 2022, 11:27:21 PM
Actually I posted examples in this thread of your manipulative, bullying trolling. Why are you lying, Zak?
The last time you tried to post "examples" was on this page: https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/480/

I then addressed the claims directly, one by one, and proved they were wrong on the same page.

You, of course, had an opportunity to counter and try to somehow disprove the counterclaims. You didn't and instead since then, unless I miss my count, you have posted four one-liners and an image macro.

tl;dr

Your examples turned out to be lying, you got caught and haven't bothered to even try to wriggle out of it. See link for proof.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 15, 2022, 08:30:01 AM
No, you asserted that the claims were wrong. Assertion =/= proof. Again, why are you lying, Zak?

Edit: for fun, here is the comments section of the long-delayed Demon City Kickstarter. Zak challenges several people critical of him to sign affidavits. Seeing as it is highly unlikely that Zak intends to bring suit against any of these people, and even less likely that he could demonstrate damages if he did, this is nothing more than a transparent attempt on the part of Zak to use the implied threat of legal action to bully people. Zak's associate, Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak. I feel for that dude. But these comments are good for a few laughs, nonetheless.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/diyrpgproductions/demon-city-the-ultimate-horror-rpg/comments
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 15, 2022, 11:28:02 AM
You got caught lying lots of times in a row. You didn't apologize or admit it and instead are trying to change the subject. Doing that is like randomly kicking a dog in the face--once you do that, your "points" you think you're making don't matter to any rational person.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.  I said you were an asshole.  I can quote myself saying you're an asshole lots of times in this thread.  I've provided examples of why and how you're an asshole.  I've pointed out that your claims to 'rebut' my assertions instead only prove that you're an asshole because I say something to the effect of 'assholes be like dat' and then you come in immediately and post exactly what I'm describing as behavior that describes an asshole. 

I also haven't kicked any dogs in the face.  So I don't know why you think my 'points' don't matter to any rational person.  But unlike you, I don't try to decide what reasonable people can or should believe.  Instead I explain my position and let them come to their own conclusion.  More on that below.

Zak S., you're an asshole because of consistency of behavior.  I make a lot of allowances for other people.  Sometimes someone acts like a jerk but they didn't mean to.  Everyone has a bad day.  Sometimes they legitimately weren't aware of your presence (like when they cut you off).  It's easy to describe that type of behavior as someone being an asshole.  But if we got a chance to know the person, walk a mile in their shoes, we might find that our initial impression was a mistake.  They might be a generally good person who either came off badly in a single exchange or were distracted by some serious shit and had a momentary lapse in manners. 

You've asked me to quote you being an asshole (and I have), but one part of the challenge is that any individual statement might appear as misreading or representing tone.  Especially in a written medium, that can be a challenge.  A statement like 'is that what you're going to wear?' could be a legitimate question without any judgement perhaps to make sure you don't wear the same outfit or dress similarly.  But it could also be a diss making fun of someone's fashion sense.  How can one be sure?  Well, normally you can't be sure.  But when a behavior is repeated enough, and you're called on it over and over, you can be reasonably certain that someone is continuing that behavior because they're an asshole. 

So it is with you.  You have been called out for being dismissive many times.  You have been called out for redefining terms to your advantage many times.  You have been called out for arguing one point then claiming to have been arguing the opposite the entire time and people should just ask you for clarification instead of disagreeing with you.  I have linked to these examples, but because it requires reading 40+ pages of comments to fully understand context it's not easy or reasonable to demand that someone show you the single comment that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're an asshole. 

Fortunately, I don't need to do that.  When I call you an asshole, that's a statement of opinion.  You can claim that I'm not entitled to my opinion, or that my opinion is not based on sufficient evidence to meet your standards, but it is clear that your standards of what makes YOU as asshole are unreasonably high.  I expect that there is no standard of evidence that you'd agree to accept to accede that you are, in fact, an asshole.  And that's okay.  As much as I would like you to show even the smallest amount of self-reflection and personal improvement, you've also shown that you can't stand any criticism and are automatically defensive and resort to scorched earth attacks.

It's my belief that just about everyone that has interacted with you in places like this now sees that your 'argument' comes out to 'I know you are but what am I'.  Dealing with someone who responds in that way requires infinite patience or dropping it because there is no prospect of changing their mind - and of course it does nothing to deflect the accusation outside of a 3rd grade mentality.  But I think it's really important that you understand that I continue to think you're an asshole, I continue to provide descriptions of what I consider assholish behavior, I continue to show that you act in that manner, and I haven't kicked any dogs in the face (which wouldn't necessarily mean that I'm not right even if it does mean that I'm also an asshole), so it would be another example of you being an asshole if you try to respond by saying something to the effect of 'I've already responded to all your comments' (you haven't), or 'he's already proven that his comments mean nothing because he's a big meanie' (that's an opinion you can have for yourself, but not on behalf of the whole world). 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 15, 2022, 01:59:13 PM
Zak. this is not a court of law. There is no "burden of proof" on anyone for anything at any time. I'm free to dislike you because of the color of pants you wear, if I so desire. My reasons are, frankly, none of your business. That having been said, I, and others, have repeatedly stated our opinions of you, and why we hold them. You have insisted that you've rebutted them, but you haven't done so to our satisfaction. Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but not mine, certainly.

I know you think you're on some kind of mission here, but it is a fool's errand. Do keep it up, though, I never get tired of watching you flail sputteringly.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 15, 2022, 09:52:00 PM
Do keep it up, though, I never get tired of watching you flail sputteringly.

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 15, 2022, 09:56:41 PM
Somebody call me an asshole and I'll show Zak S. how a non-asshole responds?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 16, 2022, 12:10:55 AM
Zak. this is not a court of law. There is no "burden of proof" on anyone for anything at any time. I'm free to dislike you because of the color of pants you wear, if I so desire. My reasons are, frankly, none of your business. That having been said, I, and others, have repeatedly stated our opinions of you, and why we hold them. You have insisted that you've rebutted them, but you haven't done so to our satisfaction. Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but not mine, certainly.

I know you think you're on some kind of mission here, but it is a fool's errand. Do keep it up, though, I never get tired of watching you flail sputteringly.
Are you prepared to prove he even wears pants, particularly while posting here?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 06:21:27 AM
No, you asserted that the claims were wrong. Assertion =/= proof. Again, why are you lying, Zak?

If you believe that an assertion I made in response to your post on the last page is false then you haven't said which one.

For example, I asserted:

Quote
Bullying requires the bully have more power in the situation than who they're interacting with, and everyone here has the same power here: to type.

You haven't addressed it.

Quote
Edit: for fun, here is the comments section of the long-delayed Demon City Kickstarter. Zak challenges several people critical of him to sign affidavits..

Oh look, it's now changed from the lie that I was "insisting" it to now it's just "challenging" them.

You just got caught, changed your wording and are pretending you weren't caught.

p.s. Oh and here you are caught again:

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

No, he doesn't say that at all--he just says he himself is not making the same offer as me, and he said it in the link you provided.

You got caught again, this time by your own link.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 06:26:19 AM
You got caught lying lots of times in a row. You didn't apologize or admit it and instead are trying to change the subject. Doing that is like randomly kicking a dog in the face--once you do that, your "points" you think you're making don't matter to any rational person.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.  I said you were an asshole...

And also lied about a bunch of other stuff.

You lied about "tongue shoving" fantasy, you lied and pretended that the things you were complaining about weren't recorded, you lied about me impersonating someone, you lied about me asking for some kind of "rules" in an argument and not following them.

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/420/

 You're just doing what I already described again: changing the subject from how you lied to the more nebulous territory of namecalling.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 06:28:38 AM
Zak. this is not a court of law. There is no "burden of proof" on anyone for anything at any time.

Burden of proof is about avoiding logical fallacies, thats a thing that's good inside OR outside of a courtroom.

Quote
I'm free to dislike you because of the color of pants you wear, if I so desire.

Yeah we're talking about lying, not your taste in pants.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 16, 2022, 06:43:31 AM
Zak. this is not a court of law. There is no "burden of proof" on anyone for anything at any time.

Burden of proof is about avoiding logical fallacies, thats a thing that's good inside OR outside of a courtroom.

Quote
I'm free to dislike you because of the color of pants you wear, if I so desire.

Yeah we're talking about lying, not your taste in pants.
Why would you want to taste his pants?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 16, 2022, 08:32:09 AM
You lied about "tongue shoving" fantasy, you lied and pretended that the things you were complaining about weren't recorded, you lied about me impersonating someone, you lied about me asking for some kind of "rules" in an argument and not following them.

....

 You're just doing what I already described again: changing the subject from how you lied to the more nebulous territory of namecalling.

You're doing that thing again where you pretend that I'm changing the subject when my participation has always been about how you're an asshole.  Talking about whether I'm a liar or not would be a change in subject.  But, your examples of me 'lying' are not, in fact, examples of me lying.  If you were not an asshole and looked at those exchanges objectively, you'd see that you didn't participate in good faith.  Regarding the small bonus to diplomacy, the original claim is that either that bonus is 'good and helpful' so that people would want it, meaning that Diplomancers would play instruments to be good at their job, or the bonus is not 'good and helpful' so people didn't need to play instruments to be good at Diplomacy.  You spent half the thread arguing that being better at something doesn't mean people would do that thing, then the other half arguing that there are so many ways to get the bonus that instruments weren't important.  And yes, I was making fun of and parodying your position 15 pages before you 'clarified'.  Which is part of why I am still calling you an asshole.  But not as a 'drive by heckler'.  Nor as a 'dog-face-kicker'.

I like it when you try to say that I'm an unreliable witness to you being an asshole.  Because I'm not.  And the more you exhibit the behaviors that I describe as 'being an asshole' the easier it is for everyone else to see it. 

Carry on!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 16, 2022, 09:42:57 AM
No, you asserted that the claims were wrong. Assertion =/= proof. Again, why are you lying, Zak?

If you believe that an assertion I made in response to your post on the last page is false then you haven't said which one.

For example, I asserted:

Quote
Bullying requires the bully have more power in the situation than who they're interacting with, and everyone here has the same power here: to type.

You haven't addressed it.

Quote
Edit: for fun, here is the comments section of the long-delayed Demon City Kickstarter. Zak challenges several people critical of him to sign affidavits..

Oh look, it's now changed from the lie that I was "insisting" it to now it's just "challenging" them.

You just got caught, changed your wording and are pretending you weren't caught.

p.s. Oh and here you are caught again:

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

No, he doesn't say that at all--he just says he himself is not making the same offer as me, and he said it in the link you provided.

You got caught again, this time by your own link.

(https://img.fae.ro/8922a9.png)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: blackstone on August 16, 2022, 11:10:35 AM
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/narcissism-symptoms-signs (https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/narcissism-symptoms-signs)

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 01:52:06 PM


 You're just doing what I already described again: changing the subject from how you lied to the more nebulous territory of namecalling.

You're doing that thing again where you pretend that I'm changing the subject when my participation has always been about how you're an asshole.

Regardless of what you want it to be "about" you still got caught lying.


Quote
  But, your examples of me 'lying' are not, in fact, examples of me lying.


Here's a list of concrete claims:

Quote
you lied about "tongue shoving" fantasy, you lied and pretended that the things you were complaining about weren't recorded, you lied about me impersonating someone, you lied about me asking for some kind of "rules" in an argument and not following them.

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/420/

Quote
Regarding the small bonus to diplomacy...

I didn't in any way say anything about "tongue shoving". Your fantasy was about "shoving your tongue down someone's throat". Diplomacy rolls are beside the point.

I am 100% pointing directly to your claim and speaking in good faith. A good faith interlocutor would assume you meant the facts you asserted and that you intended to defend them and defend his own. I am doing that.

A necessary good faith observation here (that is: saying exctly what I believe makes your argument false) unrelated tangent doesn't address any of the things I gave as examples you lied about:

-You still havent addressed your "tongue shoving" fantasy
-You lied and pretended that the things you were complaining about weren't recorded
-You lied about me impersonating someone
-You lied about me asking for some kind of "rules" in an argument and not following them
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 01:58:01 PM
No, you asserted that the claims were wrong. Assertion =/= proof. Again, why are you lying, Zak?

If you believe that an assertion I made in response to your post on the last page is false then you haven't said which one.

For example, I asserted:

Quote
Bullying requires the bully have more power in the situation than who they're interacting with, and everyone here has the same power here: to type.

You haven't addressed it.

Quote
Edit: for fun, here is the comments section of the long-delayed Demon City Kickstarter. Zak challenges several people critical of him to sign affidavits..

Oh look, it's now changed from the lie that I was "insisting" it to now it's just "challenging" them.

You just got caught, changed your wording and are pretending you weren't caught.

p.s. Oh and here you are caught again:

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

No, he doesn't say that at all--he just says he himself is not making the same offer as me, and he said it in the link you provided.

You got caught again, this time by your own link.

(https://img.fae.ro/8922a9.png)

Yeah you just posted the proof you lied.

Your false claim was that Mike "“ told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.”"

That isn't anywhere in that quote. Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

If "I don't recommend you sign this unless you understand it and have talked to a lawyer" mean the same as "I am telling you don't do it" then literally no one has ever recommended in good faith that anyone sign a contract ever since contract law began. This is bizarre beyond belief that you don't understand that or have decided to pretend not to.

So, those are completely different. You just made that up. If you hadn't posted it there was an outside chance you had misremembered but the fact you posted the exact wording means you knew that and decided to lie about it.

So you can't even hide behind the "I'm just not gonna answer" defense. You caught yourself lying.

You should consult a therapist about having done that and, if they recommend it and you understand the risks, go into treatment. And by that I don't mean you shouldn't go into treatment.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 16, 2022, 04:10:54 PM
That isn't anywhere in that quote. Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

I plan to address your comments aimed at me tomorrow, but I can't NOT respond to this today. 

Zak S., I have up to this point, refrained from calling you an idiot.  I've maintained that you're an asshole, and when you don't understand something it is because you're WILLFULLY choosing to misrepresent or misunderstand because you're an ASSHOLE.  I will ask you to clarify if you are deliberately misrepresenting in this case or if I've been wrong and you're both an IDIOT and an ASSHOLE

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers. He does not. He is recommending to people NOT to sign anything, but if they want to sign it, do a lot of investigation, first.  He does not offer any benefits to signing any legal documents, and reiterates that signing them is UNNCESSARY from his perspective. 

That is to say, he is clearly recommending NOT signing an affidavit or contract. 

Only because you're an asshole and constantly try to redefine the meaning of natural language to your advantage would you think otherwise. Of course, your pattern of behavior doesn't require that your 'rebuttals' have actual meaning.  You have a history of asserting that you did a rebuttal, and given enough posts and enough pages, only someone with a vested interest (like a court of law) would dig through those pages to confirm who is being honest and who is being a liar. 

I'm looking forward to relitigating the stupid argument where my initial point was (obvious to everyone with a functional brain, just as Mike's post above) was that you were willing to grant a similar bonus in a 'bajillion situations' not strictly limited to playing a musical instrument, but rather than simply say that (resolving the crux of the argument) you instead persisted in arguing for pages upon pages calling people liars, failing to engage and respond to their points, and then continuing to do so once you confirmed that the community was right. 

Just to get ahead of the indictment that I'm a liar, there's a chance that I don't present my post tomorrow.  Since you're asking me to go dig through potentially hundreds of posts and you are pathologically incapable of characterizing a person's stated position accurately, explaining that you're a liar liar pants on fire asshole idiot (which is self-evident to anyone with at least average intelligence [except you]) is both time consuming and ultimately pointless (you are a narcissist who cannot accept that you're an asshole even if the whole world agreed and they printed your picture in the dictionary for the word), so there's a CHANCE that I find something EVEN MORE FUN to do with my time, but I have to admit, calling you an asshole every day has been enjoyable. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 04:17:23 PM

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 16, 2022, 05:36:36 PM
There's that concern trolling right on schedule, lmao.

Zak, you know we aren't mentally ill. If you really believed that, you'd try to marry us, so you could make a big performative deal about being a caregiving martyr, only to weaponize our illness against us when we called you on your abusive shit.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 16, 2022, 11:13:03 PM
There's that concern trolling right on schedule, lmao.

What is the concern that you think I am pretending to have?

Like: either you believe things that are proved false right in front of you (which is a hallmark of mental illness) in post 518.

Or: you weigh whatever you think you get out of lying (as proven in post 518) greater than the damage it does to people around you (which is a hallmark of a different mental illness).

I can't think of a plausible explanation of your behavior which doesn't include mental illness.

Either way:

That's one more thing you said that's not true.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Chris24601 on August 17, 2022, 02:52:18 PM
The only thing I can constructively add to this thread is to formally request it be locked by Pundit and allowed to sink into the depths of the internet as it is well past the point of adding any positive element to the site.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2022, 01:28:39 PM
No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

There you are doing it again.  Being an asshole.  Whenever there is a disagreement about interpretation you insist that the other side is deliberately misrepresenting and lying

Quote from: Zak. S
(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again

A little harsh, no?  Of course it's especially harsh when you define 'disagreeing with Zak' as 'trolling'. 

It's clear to me now that you're not as smart as you think you are.  In fact, you're not even as smart as I thought you were.  I've known a lot of smart people who can be condescending jerks because of their intelligence; I've also known people that are condescending jerks because they're deliberately aping behaviors they've seen from smart people (who really should learn that being nice gets you farther than being smart).  I've always thought that you're actually smart and just acting like you literally cannot understand English because you think it wins you debate points. 

Of course, the idea that there's anyone actually keeping score is absurd.  When we both find ourselves lying on our deathbeds (the version that means having lain oneself down as opposed to making up stories), I very much doubt you'll find any comfort in people you believe you've 'pwned' on the internet.  But maybe I'm wrong.  From where I'm standing, that looks like the most likely thing that you'll be left with.  I hope it is a comfort to you! 

The only thing I can constructively add to this thread is to formally request it be locked by Pundit and allowed to sink into the depths of the internet as it is well past the point of adding any positive element to the site.

You don't think that letting Zak prove he's an asshole offers any benefit to people that may encounter him in the hobby elsewhere?  Forewarned is forearmed, ne? 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 18, 2022, 01:43:24 PM
Whenever there is a disagreement about interpretation you insist that the other side is deliberately misrepresenting and lying


Check post 518:
https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/495/

This isn't a "disagreement about interpretation". You blatantly typed something that wasn't what I said.

Even if it was an accident:

Failing to fact-check before making an accusation against someone is bad--that negligence and disregard for another human--is as bad as lying.

And not apologizing now that it's been exposed is much worse than both. You might be emotionally compromised and just so triggered you can't bring yourself to be fair to the person you're talking to in the moment. But it's been days, you can't still claim to be freaking out. The fact you haven't said "Yeah in post 518 there I 100% wrote something that is obviously not what you wrote, sorry."

Quote
A little harsh, no?  Of course it's especially harsh when you define 'disagreeing with Zak' as 'trolling'. 

Actually, if I remember correctly I was responding to someone saying literally "I was trolling you". So: the definition of trolling there is the troll's, not mine.

You either didn't check when you grabbed the quote which is morally negligent and as bad as lying.

OR you did check and deliberately chose to not say the truth, which is lying.

Not that it really matters, since in post 518 above it's already proved, hands down, that you aren't honest.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: oggsmash on August 18, 2022, 01:48:07 PM
  This is popcorn worthy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2022, 02:03:58 PM
One of the things that I think is important is to point out that calling you out on your asshole behavior is that while I agree with MANY other people who have called you an asshole, I am not the first (and certainly won't be the last) to do so. 

Here's a gem:

Quote from: Phonelobster
So you, being a total fucking moron just see one word referring to an argument you have lost repeatedly and just jump right back cancerous spamming of your ongoing claim you totally refuted that issue. Expired rancid spam which dates back well before the last five or five thousand times that people have pointed out your refutation is a pile of shit and that your altruism issues are still a big pile of smelly smelly poop.

I maintain that you have misinterpreted the post; your insistence that everyone else is instead mistaken is a further proof that you are an asshole.  And for at least the last 8 years, you have been doing exactly this - that makes it a consistent pattern of behavior. 

I've focused on your behavior (as demonstrated in this thread); there are a lot of things that can come out about ridiculous unprovable claims you've made about yourself that would make you, at a minimum, super-human.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 18, 2022, 02:12:52 PM
One of the things that I think is important is to point out that calling you out on your asshole...

You're trying to change the subject from you lying.

Or, if we're really generous, being fantastically, (assholishly) negligent in checking your false accusation before making it.

I'm gonna repost post 518 just to show everyone again:
Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2022, 03:27:11 PM

You're trying to change the subject from you lying.

Already rebutted. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 18, 2022, 06:40:47 PM

You're trying to change the subject from you lying.

Already rebutted.

I'm 100% comfortable with readers looking at what you did here in post 518:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


...and deciding whether you are honest or not.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 19, 2022, 08:42:48 AM

Quote
A little harsh, no?  Of course it's especially harsh when you define 'disagreeing with Zak' as 'trolling'. 

Actually, if I remember correctly I was responding to someone saying literally "I was trolling you". So: the definition of trolling there is the troll's, not mine.

Since you have perfect recall of your rulings at the table, I would expect you to have perfect recall of this type of evaluation as well.  As far as I can tell, Tiac made a comment that you didn't like, you confused it with Kaelik, then admitted you made a mistake, then pretended that Kaelik admitted to trolling you.  I'm reading through so many wonderful posts that detail why you are an asshole and it makes me feel so YOUNG that you haven't changed in the last 10 years. 

Here's some direct quotes:

Quote from: Tiac
You see, this is not a DM advice forum, it is a game design forum. MTP is a bad thing in game design because no one needs rules to come up with MTP. If you write rules under the expectation that everyone will change them, then your product is worthless.

Quote from: Zak S
Quote from: Stinktopus
Also, while Kaelik is most certainly NOT a real person, he has made statements about how "some" or "many" people do things.  He has not been as universal in his proclamations as you seem to claim.
No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

Quote from: Kaelik post_id=360473 time=1385342299 user_id=355
Quote from: Zak S
No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

You know what is a breathtaking lack of awareness? Your complete inability to fucking read you psychotic lying sack of shit.

I never said that at any point, and you are a lying sack of shit.

The following sentence will be the first and second use of the term "worthless" by me in this thread: While you Zak S are not personally worthless as a human being, it is only because your body will feed microbes subsequent to your death, because while currently alive, you are of negative net worth, because you are a lying sack of shit.

To be fair to Kaelik, since your statement was untrue (and easily checked since it appeared only a few posts higher on the page) him calling you a liar liar followed your established pattern.  Except it didn't require any deliberate misinterpretation - I mean, you were guilty of misinterpreting Tiac, but arguing that Kaelik said that and to say some really shitty things certainly provoked that response. 

There is a gap of a few months, but since you said Kaelik admitted to trolling, you should post that quote you lying sack of shit. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 19, 2022, 01:16:17 PM
Again, you're trying to change the subject.

Burden of proof is on the accuser and you're the one who accused me of having some silly nonstandard definition of "troll" that you made up and of wanting to participate in your strange tongue-shoving fantasy and or of all kinds of labyrinthine pretzel-logic things I can't even follow.

You want to accuse me of those beliefs--or of believing the earth is flat, or of believing in talking mice, or any other silly thing you made up and decided to post on the internet--the burden of proof is on you. The accuser.

Do we trust you?

Again, I'm 100% comfortable with readers looking at what you did here in post 518:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


...and deciding whether you are honest or not.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 19, 2022, 01:52:09 PM
Quote
Being such a dick that nobody wants to engage you usually insulates you from having to hear rational objections to what you say. Maybe that's, subconsciously, why you do it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 19, 2022, 01:59:51 PM
Again, you're still trying to change the subject from how you don't have rational objections because your grievances are fabricated:

Proof is here, in post 518:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 19, 2022, 05:25:32 PM
I've just finished the 29 pages of the original thread where you proposed your social currency rule.  I did not find any instance of Kaelik admitting to being a troll.  I did not find any quotes you provided where he admitted to being a troll.

I found lots of examples of you mischaracterizing people's posts.  I found plenty of examples where you insist that there is only one possible interpretation of intent and that anyone that disagrees with you is a liar.  I have seen people explaining the definitions of basic words like 'liar' that you insist on using incorrectly, repeatedly.  And I have seen many people characterize your behavior negatively. 

They have also surmised that you continue to do it because you think it is helpful to you. 

I'm glad that you think me agreeing with someone else that you misinterpreted a post proves that you're very smart and won this thread.  I don't think it it does that. 

But in going back and looking at what other people have said, I can quote other people calling you an asshole for the same reasons, and even if I were to believe that I'm a lying liar and couldn't be trusted, other people who are not lying liars coming to the same conclusion would be...strange.  Broken clock is right twice a day. 

Quote from: Zak S.
Say what that is now[/b], or else apologize for believing an irrational thing.[/b]

Quote from: Kaelik
See, this again. This is another five year old thing. See, everyone knows you are an arrogant prick. And you might think that is because you claimed that you make 100% perfect rulings in seconds that never ever backfire, but you would be wrong. We all knew you were an arrogant prick long before that. It is really easy.

See, the thing is, every single time someone says you are wrong about something, you say, "You didn't understand what I said/meant* if you didn't understand, why didn't you ask clarifying questions, you should have asked questions."

Then, every time you want to tell someone they are wrong, you turn around and say this shit quoted above. You literally never ask questions, you never ask clarifying questions, you never even consider for a second that you might not know exactly what people meant.

Instead you make absurdly stupid sounding demands as if you have any authority at all, and you phrase them in the most baldfacedly arrogant manner that they could possibly be phrased.

On this page, page 16, you have used a question mark once so far. You used it to make a rhetorical question that didn't address K's argument. On the other hand you have demanded that people:

1) accept you challenge.
2) Reread your posts (you have made this demand in literally every single post on this page).
3) Seek professional (presumably psychiatric) help.
4) Stop speaking in public.
5) Make a statement of evidence or apologize.
6) Stop talking about something that the person in question never talked about.
7) Demand they ask clarifying questions.

and you made empirical statements about what people are allowed to do (which includes the statement that they are not allowed to disagree with you unless they present their arguments to you, something patently stupid and false).

It is the mind blowing hypocrisy of your method of "discussing" in which you demand from others extremely specific and often irrelevant responses instead of asking questions, but whine about how anyone who disagrees with what you plainly said or doesn't find your arguments compelling must ask an assortment of clarifying questions to narrow down your future goal post shifting before they can criticize what you said that indicates you are an arrogant prick.

So if you don't understand something, ask clarifying questions instead of making up bad faith challenges or demanding that someone say something. You shitfuck.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 19, 2022, 06:53:36 PM
You're claiming I did all kinds of bad things, and now trying to quote some rando behaving like you and reliigating a thread from forever past. No proof in stereo is still no proof. And nothing changes what you actually did or are doing:

You are doing it to distract from how you are dishonest.

And not only does this show you not being honest here in post 518:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

But the absolute proof is how you keep wiggling and tap-dancing rather than just acknowledging this huge moment, right here, where you so obviously got caught and, at minimum, at least trying to explain it. (Apologizing is clearly beyond you as well but, seriously, nobody expected that.)

Because you can't. You are pretending you can't read post 518 or something.

But anyone reading this thread can see it right there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 19, 2022, 07:48:40 PM
post 518

post 518:

post 518:

post 518

ZakBot is glitching
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 19, 2022, 07:49:35 PM
post 518

post 518:

post 518:

post 518

ZakBot is glitching

Now that's funny!!  :D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 20, 2022, 01:28:16 AM

post 518:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Now, I'm not a native speaker so I migh be wrong, but appears is like saying seems, it's a statement of opinion, not of fact.

So, even if WokemanWalking's opinion is wrong that doesn't make him a liar.

I fail to see the lie, maybe someone can explain to me how it's not an opinion but a statement of fact or how an opinion can be a lie.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 06:23:59 AM
I am 100% ok with any person looking at this.....
Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

But the absolute proof is how you keep wiggling and tap-dancing rather than just acknowledging this huge moment, right here, where you so obviously got caught and, at minimum, at least trying to explain it. (Apologizing is clearly beyond you as well but, seriously, nobody expected that.)

Because you can't. You are pretending you can't read post 518 or something.

But anyone reading this thread can see it right there.
[/quote]

...and using that to decide whether the trolls on here are honest or not.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 20, 2022, 09:30:48 AM
It's hilarious that Zak expects everyone to take his ridiculous arguments as seriously as he does, and also that his arguments rely wholly on their doing so.

Zak, please put a "post 518" Easter egg in your next project. I mean, I won't buy it, and neither will anyone else, but please do it anyway.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 09:50:21 AM
"post 518"

I was actually thinking we should have a '518' RPG game jam. We should use this absolute drivel of a thread to actually do something creative.

'Space Freighter 518' was the name of an infamous cursed ship that made their crew experience a horrific 'time loop' over and over again.

But 518 was eventually decommissioned and its scrap was used to make another ship. Unfortunately, the same vile entity still resides in the 'bones' of 518, and eventually, the crew starts experiencing these horrific time loops and starts driving the crew bat shit crazy and they start killing each other.

Can the players survive??

"Salvum me fac ab inferno"







Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 12:57:22 PM
It's hilarious that Zak expects everyone...

"Everyone" is never the target audience. I don't expect you (for example) to do anything that a good, smart person would do.

A good, smart person would look at this:

Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

And be like "Oh, those guys aren't honest".

That's all I need.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Garry G on August 20, 2022, 02:41:17 PM
The thing about Zak is that everything he posts makes him sound like a manipulative, coercive person who is really into gaslighting. He may be the sweetest bloke in the world in real life but his online presence ticks every box.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 02:44:49 PM
The thing about Zak is that everything he posts makes him sound like a manipulative, coercive person who is really into gaslighting. He may be the sweetest bloke in the world in real life but his online presence ticks every box.


No, "ticking every box" for gaslighting, coercion and manipulation would require being caught being dishonest and trying to gloss over it, the way the people here were caught:



Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


...and keep trying to change the subject.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 20, 2022, 03:13:42 PM
Who's trying to change the subject?  Garry G?

The only subject I'm here to talk about is how you're an asshole.  Spamming Post 518 is just more proof of it.  It doesn't say what you want it to say, other people (who are not me) tell you it doesn't say what you want it to say, and it's just more proof that you're an immature asshole that has no ability to ignore people not liking you. 

Now, it seems that at the root of it, you just can't believe that you're unlikeable.  If everyone is calling you an asshole and 'you're not a dick' (your words) how could people just be so wrong all the time?  I mean, maybe it's because you've never said you're good at talking to absolute morons (that earned you a bunch of those brownie points. 

But if you want the subject to be 'is deadDMwalking scrupulously honest at all times, even to his detriment, excepting when literal Nazis are asking if he's hiding Jews in his basement' and the answer is 'no'.  If the waitress asks me if I like my food I'll usually say yes, even if it isn't very good.  I just don't like to complain if it can't change anything and it's more trouble for me to send it back.  So when I make it a point of coming here and being VERY HONEST with you, even when I don't have to, it's because it either seems to serve the greater good (warning people about you) or because I'm just not mean to people and you're a nice safe target for releasing some vitriol on because you, of all the people I encounter, actually deserve it. 

But even if I were being dishonest about this (I'm not), I'm still NOT THE ONLY ONE who thinks that Zak S. is an asshole. 

I know a lot of people on the rpgsite have been banned from RPG.net, so maybe this doesn't carry much weight with them, but I don't know any of the people there and I can tell they've recognized the same behaviors I've called you on (in case it matters, this came up as I am reviewing all the bullshit you spewed on the Gaming Den). 

Quote from: RPG Perma Ban
Just so we're clear, this is the result of a staff decision and not something I'm doing on my own.

Nor is it because of your opinions! Discussion is RPGnet's anti-drug, and for that it needs a beautiful rainbow of viewpoints. This is because you are consistently toxic to that discussion.

You serially derail sexism threads with bad-faith arguments. You insist that nobody can ever make generalizations about anything ever (even when they're not), then post generalizations. You pull out arguments that boil down to "words don't mean things" like that's ever been constructive outside the philosophy forum. You're passive-aggressive and occasionally condescending, you post anecdotes as facts, you tell people that things can't be sexist because you know ~females~ who would disagree. You're convinced that you're always right and refuse to consider otherwise, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep making up strawmen to dismiss people who disagree with you (cf. the pass-agg "stop assuming all women are alike!" business, asserting that feminist game bloggers and others who disagree with you must be "conservative", every time you say "Tipper Gore" ever). You don't take anything that isn't agreement for an answer, and will argue in circles about it instead of making the positive contributions you could be until you get bored or someone makes you stop.

These things happen a lot! The Numenera thread is by no means the only one, and the post I've chosen as an infraction is just an example: Insisting that this one monster is Definitely Sexist because it doesn't meet an arbitrary definition of sexism you came up with, asserting that anyone who disagrees has to produce scientific studies about elfgames (that work with your definition of sexism) which have been mysteriously absent from your sexism thread derailing posts up to and also beyond this point, waving around your G+ followers as an army of faceless posters who totally have your back on this, and passive-aggressively insinuating that people who disagree think all women are alike, are the real sexists and need to do their research. That is the kind of un-chill posting we are talking about here.

Like I said, that opinion rainbow is something we should totally reach for, and it's nice to have people to break up the steamroller threads we get every once in a while, but for that to work we need people to elevate the discussion instead of bringing a hamster wheel keyboard powered by sophistry-flavoured energy drinks to aggravate everyone until it's shut down. We have plenty of other posters who can bring that discourse to the table without bringing along all that other stuff, and you have most of the rest of the internet to have this discussion in.

We would topic ban you from sexism chat, but a lot of this applies to the other discussions you typically have here and we have tried explaining things enough times that it is probably best to just skip that.

Sorry, but it is time to take a Zak sabbath. Appeals to the admins.

But hey, if you want to make a thread about how I'm a liar and a poopy head, you go right ahead. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 03:23:27 PM
Lol you just quoted Ettin--the guy who got successfully sued for lying.

He had to take back what he said, pay me, and admit I didn't commit any abuses at all.

That's like saying "See Donald Trump agrees with me!".

It doesn't say what you want it to say...

As I said, I am comfortable with people reading this thread looking at the post where you were proven immediately and decisively to be dishonest and deciding that for themselves.

Here it is in case they missed it:

Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 20, 2022, 04:08:23 PM
Lol you just quoted Ettin--the guy who got successfully sued for lying.

He had to take back what he said, pay me, and admit I didn't commit any abuses at all.

That's like saying "See Donald Trump agrees with me!".

It doesn't say what you want it to say...

As I said, I am comfortable with people reading this thread looking at the post where you were proven immediately and decisively to be dishonest and deciding that for themselves.

Here it is in case they missed it:

Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Somebody being forced by a government entity, under penalty of legal punishment, to say what you want them to is not really an admission. That's like saying the statements made by American GIs in the POW camps of Vietnam were actual "admissions" of wrongdoing, rather than statements elicited by torture and coercion. Ettin had no choice. I'd wager his opinion of you hasn't changed. I think you know that. I doubt anyone who sympathized with Ettin changed their minds after your "victory lap". Did anyone or anyplace unban/re-admit you? No? I didn't think so. Furthermore, I'd wager that your behavior is actually turning more people away from you than it is winning people over. If this is really about the "truth", as you claim, well, then, that shouldn't bother you. As for me, I'll keep posting at the forums you're banned from, attending Gen Con, and having a publisher's account on drivethrurpg, while you're crowing about what a great job you've done of clearing your name.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 04:09:19 PM
"Your honor, many support my claim--Richard Nixon, Pinocchio..."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 20, 2022, 04:09:33 PM
"post 518"

I was actually thinking we should have a '518' RPG game jam. We should use this absolute drivel of a thread to actually do something creative.

'Space Freighter 518' was the name of an infamous cursed ship that made their crew experience a horrific 'time loop' over and over again.

But 518 was eventually decommissioned and its scrap was used to make another ship. Unfortunately, the same vile entity still resides in the 'bones' of 518, and eventually, the crew starts experiencing these horrific time loops and starts driving the crew bat shit crazy and they start killing each other.

Can the players survive??

"Salvum me fac ab inferno"

This is a legit great idea.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 04:11:47 PM
"...Peter Baelish, a genuine Lord of one of the great houses of Westeros has also given his support..."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 04:12:29 PM
Ettin had no choice.

He had no proof.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 20, 2022, 05:44:03 PM
I think this one is really pertinent. 

Quote from: DSMatticus
DSMatticus
For everyone watching at home, Zak S has gone full-on ad hominem. And I don't mean that in the sense that he is saying mean things about people on the internet, I mean that it is an actual argumentum ad hominem full-blown logical fallacy - he is attempting to discredit criticisms against him by digging up wholly irrelevant facts about the people making those criticisms.

Now, his ad hominem attacks are also fucking weird. He is claiming to have "won" any argument people walk away from, and his ad hominem of choice is "I have vanquished you already, begone!" Now, the fact is that Zak S is himself a gish galloping fuckwit and constantly tries to change the topic, and making one-sided demands that people engage him on all points or not be allowed to be engage him at all is deeply dishonest. You don't get to shit all over the walls and demand people clean it up for you before you admit you did something wrong. But also: I wonder if Zak S is really so fucking delusional that he thinks when people walk away from him it's because he's "won," as opposed to people getting fed up with his incorrigible stupidity and insufferable (and much undeserved) arrogance.

I'm pretty sure he's demonstrated that he does.  So I think it's important to continue making the point - Zak, you are an asshole.   


But here's one that's really damning.  All of your defenses are relativistic - despite the number of people (like me) and the many people I've quoted who call you a dick, an asshole, a cunt, a sociopath, a narcissist (or worse) - if we accept 'your opinion' about 'things' because 'it's your opinion, man and we're all unique', you'd also have to accept our opinion about things because we're all unique.  Here it is phrased better:

Quote from: FrankTrollman
If we accepted that Zak S was right to claim that his dubious rulings were always perfect because he didn't notice any problem with them, we'd have to equally accept that PhoneLobster was right to claim that his rulings were horseshit because he did. Zak S' demand for an apology is based on the idea that he is right because relativism, but if you actually accepted that then everyone else would also be right! His very basis for demanding an apology would, if accepted as a valid premise, logically lead to the conclusion that no one had to apologize for anything. Of course, we don't accept his relativistic premises, which just makes his constant repetitive bleatings for apologies moar hilarious.
-Username17

I'd really like to thank you for your encouragement in this exercise.  I've been reading over some interesting posts that I missed the first time and my understanding of how big an asshole you are has increased exponentially.  I am better educated and more enlightened.
 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 06:13:15 PM
You're doing it again. Trying to change the topic from the firm and provable ground "you lied" to whether some trolls like me or not.

...if we accept 'your opinion' about 'things' because 'it's your opinion, man and we're all unique', you'd also have to accept our opinion about things because we're all unique....

I already pointed it out pages and pages ago:

So just as someone saying something antisemitic and getting caught might say "You're unamerican!" because it's easier to be vague about what's "American" people who are caught lying say "You're an asshole" because it's way easier to endlessly be vague about who is and isn't an asshole.

You got caught not telling the truth.

Up there. In that post that got posted over and over again.

That's what's important.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 20, 2022, 06:57:15 PM
That's all I need.
Your mistake is believing that anyone on theRPGsite is here to fulfill the needs of anyone else.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 07:04:24 PM
That's all I need.
Your mistake is believing that anyone on theRPGsite is here to fulfill the needs of anyone else.

A strange claim.

I never said the troll came here in order to prove he was dishonest.

Point is he did it. The post is above on this page.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 20, 2022, 07:15:49 PM
That's all I need.
Your mistake is believing that anyone on theRPGsite is here to fulfill the needs of anyone else.

A strange claim.

I never said the troll came here in order to prove he was dishonest.

Point is he did it. The post is above on this page.
Let me clarify: if you think anyone here really truly cares about providing you what you claim is all you need, you're being foolish. Many here will likely deny you just out of spite, especially after a few rounds of your odious replies. If everyone is calling you an asshole, then you're probably an asshole...or it's just a day ending in "y" on theRPGsite.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 07:30:11 PM
Let me clarify: if you think anyone here really truly cares about providing you what you claim is all you need...

I don't think that.

Or at least: I don't think the people posting care about that or care about any reasonable thing (they've frequently said as much). They are not the target audience.

No matter how often it's absolutely explicitly pointed out, it is very odd that crazed trolls can't get it through their heads that the misinformation they spread isn't fact-checked for their benefit or to make them like the person who fact-checks them. It's for the benefit of people reading them.

Now, on top of that: There may, in fact, be absolutely no reasonable and sane lurkers reading this. It's no biggie. Pointing out that liars are lying is not a terrible inconvenience, plus it's a moral obligation.

However, if they are out there and are reading, its important they see this:



Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 20, 2022, 08:54:40 PM
I think it is demonstrably true that I have explained why you're an asshole, not just made an unsubstantiated accusation.  I've also quoted other people who are not me explaining why you are an asshole.  There are people that I don't know and hadn't spoken to before who came into this thread to also add on that you're an asshole.

And none of that PROVES you're an asshole because you haven't offered a definition of asshole or listed criteria that you think we could establish someone is an asshole (but I have). 

But as Zak once said:

Quote from: Zak S.
In the middle a conversation where 2 people don't agree and are talking about what assumptions lead to that disagreement, any time either party goes "Why won't you admit you're wrong?" that's a waste of time. Ok?

Here's a gem:
Quote from: DSMatticus
And what sort of retarded leap of not-thought is "anyone who isn't nice to me is clearly stupid." That's... something else.

And further; you are repeatedly demanding that people can't say anything vaguely insulting to you until they've convinced you that they are right to do so and you've given them permission or whatever bullshit impossible standards you're holding them to ("you can't be mean to me until I admit I'm wrong! If you do you lose na-na na-na boo-boo!"). Meanwhile, you are being the aforementioned complete and total dickbag all the same. No. That's not how it works. We're all grown ups here, and if you want to say mean things on the internet knock yourself out. But if you're going to say mean things on the internet while hiding behind falsely held standards of civility you don't even bother to pretend apply to you, you're just a fucking scumbag. The only one demanding civility here is you, because we pretty much don't care if we're kind of dicks to eachother. We are just very amused by your deeply hypocritical demands for civility.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 20, 2022, 09:06:33 PM
I think it is demonstrably true that I have explained why you're an asshole...

Already answered:

Quote
You're doing it again. Trying to change the topic from the firm and provable ground "you lied" to whether some trolls like me or not.

...if we accept 'your opinion' about 'things' because 'it's your opinion, man and we're all unique', you'd also have to accept our opinion about things because we're all unique....

I already pointed it out pages and pages ago:

So just as someone saying something antisemitic and getting caught might say "You're unamerican!" because it's easier to be vague about what's "American" people who are caught lying say "You're an asshole" because it's way easier to endlessly be vague about who is and isn't an asshole.

You got caught not telling the truth.

Up there. In that post that got posted over and over again.

That's what's important.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2022, 10:30:15 AM
And as is always the case with you, I disagree with your presentation of events.  Of course, it is demonstrably true that when one person is posting new content and the other is just posting 'nuh-nuh times infinity' the person that is providing new information looks rational, sane and mature by comparison. 

But serious question, Zak. 

1) If someone says something that APPEARS stupid and or insulting, and you can in no way imagine that they could have meant it to be anything other than stupid and insulting, does that always mean that it IS stupid and insulting? 

A) What if English is not their first language? 
B) What if it was meant exclusively to refer to their gaming group preferences, not intended as a universal? 


I'm pretty close to being the foremost expert on your online attitude, and I feel like addressing these questions would be helpful in trying to elucidate what I think is at the root of the issue (I mean, besides you ARE an asshole, but addressing how your specific brand of misanthropy takes root in every conversation you participate in). 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 21, 2022, 10:51:35 AM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 21, 2022, 11:01:20 AM
Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

100% and how very true.

But he will simply refer you to 518. It's a bit like '42' as it has all the answers of the universe. Wait... Am I now lying, or am I just being sarcastic? Maybe, I'll have to refer myself to 518.  ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2022, 11:34:34 AM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.
'

Ah, but if you said something mean about Zak once (even if he said something mean about you, first [part of a double-standard he holds]) then your comments no longer matter, so you can't point out that he is lying (or lied first) because you are a non-person and do not deserve to function in society.  More importantly, this is a 'forever' situation - even if you were to improve as a person (assuming that you were even wrong or mean to begin with which is highly unlikely) - there's no way that Zak ever has to respond to you and your legitimate points.

I feel like there's some benefit to reminding Zak he's a loser.  I feel like there's some benefit to letting himself remind him of that:

Quote
you're a terminal loser. You have chosen a life path which trades time you could be spending having real fun trying to derive it from making innocent peoples' lives worse. Go display your scathing wit in a bar or something, where someone attractive might notice it.

I think starting this thread to do a victory lap about making people's lives harder by suing them in court is a fundamental proof of that. 


Edit - I've gone through about 100 pages of conversations (some I missed the first time around) and now found another 60 page conversation.  Putting everything in chronological order has been interesting. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 21, 2022, 03:31:48 PM
1) If someone says something that APPEARS stupid and or insulting....

If it was a mere mistake on your part then the second the original speaker (me, in this case) goes "That's not what I meant" then the good faith response would be something like "Oh I am so glad you, the original speaker, are here to clarify, sorry there was a miscommunication-and about something high-stakes, let's continue this conversation in a different way now that I know I made a mistake or, at minimum, what I received was not what was intended".

You've never done that in all the many times the misinformation in your attacks was pointed out. Not in this case, nor in the case of the tongue-shoving fantasy, etc. It's not just the original misinformation, it's the failure to use or even respect any mechanism to check the attacking claim before releasing it into the world even when it was about whether a real human being did a bad thing or not. That is the ultimate proof of dishonesty. A honest person doesn't want misinformation accusing a person of a thing they did not do to exist, period.

But even that is academic, since whether it's a mistake or a blatant attempt to troll, the issue for the public is not weighing your soul. It's not that important whether the origin of your dishonesty is negligence or just trolling, it's whether your interpretations can be trusted. Whether you can be taken at your word when claiming something is a fact. And you can't.

Is the flat-earther waving his hands on the corner soapbox insane, evil, or stupid? Unless you're his good friend or therapist, the more important thing is just that he is not a reliable source of information.

And so placing your interpretation next to what happened like so:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

...allows people to decide whether your interpretations can be trusted.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 21, 2022, 03:32:31 PM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 21, 2022, 03:33:46 PM
Ah, but if you said something mean about Zak once...

Literally never said that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2022, 04:39:51 PM
Why do you think this is about me? 

I'm specifically thinking of situations where someone made a statement that did not appear insulting in any way I can think of, but where you insisted that there was no way it could not be INTENDED to be insulting.  And therefore you did not owe any request for clarification because they had already PROVEN themselves the asshole. 

But you alternately claim that if you say something that I cannot conceive is meant in any way to not be insulting (like referring to someone as Shit-for-Brains) it is clearly because I have failed to understand that it is NOT insulting.  Or, that apparently you have a 'he did it first' defense for anything that you do that you also know to be wrong. 

Well guess what, hypocrite, 'he hit me first' is not a defense for hitting someone.  If hitting people is inappropriate behavior and you call people on it, you're the one being immature if you keep doing it.  If you don't think people should be insulting, try taking the high road even once.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 21, 2022, 04:50:57 PM
Quote
Well guess what, hypocrite, 'he hit me first' is not a defense for hitting someone.

An imperfect metaphor in this case but still not always true: self-defense is a thing.  You are an aggressor, it is important to address your aggression or else you will do more harm than if your aggression goes unaddressed.

There's absolutely no harm in going "Donald Trump is an asshole" --he made the first strike (for instance: he ran for president as a Republican and then, once elected, actually governed like one).

And on the imperfection of this: you began this round of harassment with first-strike-namecalling and lying  ( your entree:  https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/375/ ) and then immediately moved to dodging issues raised in your victim's defense, then proceeded to lying more.

This is far "lower" than me merely fact-checking you--no matter how repeatedly I do it.

Why do you think this is about me? 

You are presenting misinformation so I must point that out so that naive people do not trust you. You are the aggressor.

Here is an example that proves you spread misinformation:

Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 21, 2022, 07:12:02 PM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 21, 2022, 07:26:49 PM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?

Jillion is an undefined number (as you appear to acknowledge), I am saying what I said above...

Quote
I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

...that's what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 21, 2022, 09:21:37 PM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?

Jillion is an undefined number (as you appear to acknowledge), I am saying what I said above...

Quote
I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

...that's what I'm saying.

Most dictionaries define jillion as "an indeterminately large number", or "an extremely large number". The ten or so awards you've won, while nothing to sneeze at, are definitely not an that. Please stop lying, Zak.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 21, 2022, 10:19:33 PM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?

Jillion is an undefined number (as you appear to acknowledge), I am saying what I said above...

Quote
I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

...that's what I'm saying.

Most dictionaries define jillion as "an indeterminately large number", or "an extremely large number". The ten or so awards you've won, while nothing to sneeze at, are definitely not an that. Please stop lying, Zak.

Since "large" is a relative term with no fixed amount it actually can't be a lie.

Again I am completely happy with the public evaluating your claim that I'm dishonest based on you wanting to argue about what's in my post signature.

I am also happy with the public evaluating your dishonesty based on the concrete claim below:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 22, 2022, 08:33:34 AM
Zak, your signature states that you won a jillion RPG design awards. There is no such number as "a jillion", and even if there was, you appear to have won something in the neighborhood of ten. Since this is an obvious lie, and you have been caught in it, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ok, if that's your evidence that I am dishonest then I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

So now you're doubling down on your claim that you've won "a jillion" awards?

Jillion is an undefined number (as you appear to acknowledge), I am saying what I said above...

Quote
I am happy for the public to look at that and decide whether I am honest or not based on that claim.

...that's what I'm saying.

Most dictionaries define jillion as "an indeterminately large number", or "an extremely large number". The ten or so awards you've won, while nothing to sneeze at, are definitely not an that. Please stop lying, Zak.

Since "large" is a relative term with no fixed amount it actually can't be a lie.

Again I am completely happy with the public evaluating your claim that I'm dishonest based on you wanting to argue about what's in my post signature.

I am also happy with the public evaluating your dishonesty based on the concrete claim below:


Quote

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

There is an undeniable difference between "large" (which I'd still argue "ten or so" is not, in this context, as would most sane, truthful people), and "extremely" or "indeterminately" large. The fact that you had to substantially alter what I said in order to pretend to refute it proves that you are lying. Or are you saying that ten is an "extremely" or "indeterminately" large number? Which would also be a lie. Why do you persist in this blatant and easily proven dishonesty, Zak?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: tenbones on August 22, 2022, 08:59:18 AM
I will add scientific rigor to this. I am Ten. I am Large.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: SHARK on August 22, 2022, 10:23:14 AM
I will add scientific rigor to this. I am Ten. I am Large.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Fucking hilarious, Tenbones! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 22, 2022, 10:38:20 AM
Zak,

I've been thinking about me and you a lot over the past few days.  I have been over conversation after conversation where you've been an asshole to many people who originally showed up to take your side, or warn you that you were talking to assholes.  I feel bad for those people.  I feel like it's important to warn them in advance that you're toxic, and that trying to support you or POLITELY disagree with you will invite you to inflict harm on them.  And since you are a crazy asshole, the amount of harm that you inflict on people who have trouble ignoring disparaging remarks even HALF as much as you is extraordinarily large.  As a result, I feel that calling you out on your bullshit is a moral imperative. 

But thanks to all of your posts up to this point, I can say that I have been guilty of extreme ARROGANCE.  Based on how quickly the people who came to support you realized you were a duplicitous bastard who tries to control the terms of debate and sets yourself up as the sole judge of what is acceptable or right, there are very few people incapable of coming to the same conclusion.  That said, there may be those people, and caring too much about what Zak S. thinks of them is a dangerous place and I'll continue to warn them when I feel it is appropriate (read, whenever you and I happen to meet online). 

I look forward to hearing you say 'he's just as asshole and he gave up his right to be treated as a human being 10 years ago when he said something mean about an incomplete rule I wrote in 1 minute that really qualifies as a subsystem that totally works if you let me explain the thousands of unwritten words required but obviously can't be typed in 2 minutes, oh and I posted it more than 7 hours after I read the expectations'.  Oh wait, I mean without any context at all.  And I look forward to you posting 'oh, I've rebutted all that shit he said' either with a quote that doesn't do that, or better yet a post that says 'see post x' without a link, or even better yet, 'Google Zak S, shitmuffin, deadDMwalking, left-handed scissors'. [/b]

I'm not promising that I'm not going to say more things on this thread.  I have an outline of material that I think would be really helpful in deconstructing your 'arguments' and showing exactly what violations of discourse you are repeatedly guilty of, but as I said, it's arrogant to expect that anyone else over the age of 15 can't spot them if they're involved in online discussions.  But just because it is REDUNDANT doesn't mean it isn't ACCURATE.  So we'll see. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 22, 2022, 01:40:52 PM
...are you saying that ten is an "extremely" or "indeterminately" large number?...

Depends on what you're counting.

But anyway:

If you want to say to the public that your claim that I am dishonest is my post signature I am fine with that.

Proof you aren't honest is above on this page in my previous, longer post, #571.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 22, 2022, 01:43:16 PM

But thanks to all of your posts up to this point, I can say that I have been guilty of extreme ARROGANCE. 

Already answered:

Quote
You're doing it again. Trying to change the topic from the firm and provable ground "you lied" to whether some trolls like me or not.

...if we accept 'your opinion' about 'things' because 'it's your opinion, man and we're all unique', you'd also have to accept our opinion about things because we're all unique....

I already pointed it out pages and pages ago:

So just as someone saying something antisemitic and getting caught might say "You're unamerican!" because it's easier to be vague about what's "American" people who are caught lying say "You're an asshole" because it's way easier to endlessly be vague about who is and isn't an asshole.

You got caught not telling the truth.

Up there. In that post that got posted over and over again.

That's what's important.

Proof that you are dishonest is above, in the longer post I made on this page, #571.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 24, 2022, 09:46:09 PM
lol why are you guys engaging with an accused sex offender? he has the eyes of someone who has a criminal mindset. not to mention the actual accusations of sexual abuse.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 24, 2022, 10:37:00 PM
lol why are you guys engaging with an accused sex offender? he has the eyes of someone who has a criminal mindset. not to mention the actual accusations of sexual abuse.

Because innocent until proven guilty isn't just the law, it's also a good principle to uphold. Also because we're not lunatic SJWs.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on August 25, 2022, 07:09:27 AM
lol why are you guys engaging with an accused sex offender? he has the eyes of someone who has a criminal mindset. not to mention the actual accusations of sexual abuse.
Accusation isn't adjudication.

Now kill yourself.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 25, 2022, 08:45:21 AM
lol why are you guys engaging with an accused sex offender? he has the eyes of someone who has a criminal mindset. not to mention the actual accusations of sexual abuse.

Because innocent until proven guilty isn't just the law, it's also a good principle to uphold. Also because we're not lunatic SJWs.

lol, why? Zak S has proven time and time again that he's a shitty person who dances on the edge of rules. All of his co-workers turn against him. And, like I said, physiognomy suggests that he's a criminal, barely human.

lol why are you guys engaging with an accused sex offender? he has the eyes of someone who has a criminal mindset. not to mention the actual accusations of sexual abuse.
Accusation isn't adjudication.

Now kill yourself.

Ooooh-ho-ho-ho, we got a tough guy here. You're so impotent, it's great. Why are you sucking Zackie's pee-pee anyway, you lame anime-watching dweeb.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2022, 09:45:35 AM
lol why are you guys engaging with an accused sex offender? he has the eyes of someone who has a criminal mindset. not to mention the actual accusations of sexual abuse.

Because innocent until proven guilty isn't just the law, it's also a good principle to uphold. Also because we're not lunatic SJWs.

lol, why? Zak S has proven time and time again that he's a shitty person who dances on the edge of rules. All of his co-workers turn against him. And, like I said, physiognomy suggests that he's a criminal, barely human.


Being a shitty person =/= being a criminal
Dancing on the edsge of rules =/= Breaking the rules
Leftist purity spirals have become worst since the SJW mindvirus overtook them.
I wonder what menguele would find from studying your cranium.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 25, 2022, 10:41:47 AM
It's "Mengele," and he would find that I am a Jew, so cool it with the anti-semitism, buddy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 25, 2022, 02:14:24 PM
Zak's continued posting warns everyone of his true nature. It's good to goad him into posting. It makes everyone safer. And it's funny.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2022, 04:11:03 PM
It's "Mengele," and he would find that I am a Jew, so cool it with the anti-semitism, buddy.

LOL, because I knew you were a jew? What am I a psychic?

Well, for a Jew (if you indeed are one) you sound very much like the loons that wanted to label blacks, Jews, etc as non human due to their physiognomy. And that was my point.

Which you already knew but resorted to the victim card when called out, which leads me to believe you're either a leftist plant and/or a full blown SJW.

And, now, welcome to the mute zone.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 25, 2022, 04:26:23 PM
@GeekyBugle,

This thread was better when it was about Zak S. is an asshole.  Because he is.  This is not D&D 5e advantage where if you are an asshole for 25 reasons and you are not an asshole for 1 reason they cancel and you are a normal person (no advantage, disadvantage).  And while Zak may be 'innocent until proven guilty' there is a chance that he is, in fact, 'guilty' which really just means that it's unfair to charge him as an asshole until it is 'resolved'. 

Of course, we could point out that the things that he ADMITS to doing with Mandy could be seen as controlling and/or abusive, especially knowing her struggles with mental illness. 

So sure, the point is worth making - ANYONE can be ACCUSED of ANYTHING at ANYTIME, and if you treat EVERY ACCUSATION as TRUE without ANY PROOF or evidence, you're an asshole.  But that doesn't mean that Zak isn't an asshole.  Even if we assume that the accusation is completely false, it doesn't change the conclusion - Zak is still an asshole.  There's PLENTY of evidence that we can discern with our own eyes to prove it JUST in this thread. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2022, 04:44:37 PM
@GeekyBugle,

This thread was better when it was about Zak S. is an asshole.  Because he is.  This is not D&D 5e advantage where if you are an asshole for 25 reasons and you are not an asshole for 1 reason they cancel and you are a normal person (no advantage, disadvantage).  And while Zak may be 'innocent until proven guilty' there is a chance that he is, in fact, 'guilty' which really just means that it's unfair to charge him as an asshole until it is 'resolved'. 

Of course, we could point out that the things that he ADMITS to doing with Mandy could be seen as controlling and/or abusive, especially knowing her struggles with mental illness. 

So sure, the point is worth making - ANYONE can be ACCUSED of ANYTHING at ANYTIME, and if you treat EVERY ACCUSATION as TRUE without ANY PROOF or evidence, you're an asshole.  But that doesn't mean that Zak isn't an asshole.  Even if we assume that the accusation is completely false, it doesn't change the conclusion - Zak is still an asshole.  There's PLENTY of evidence that we can discern with our own eyes to prove it JUST in this thread.

Him being an ASSHOLE (which I have no doubt he is) isn't the same as him being guilty of those acusations. And it's not dependant on him being guilty of those acusations.

He's proven he's an ASSHOLE by his own words in this thread IMHO.

But I do have principles, I'm not willing to sacrifice them for anyone or anything.

So, when the person attempting to become Mengele's successor says we shouldn't interact because he's been accused of X I'll point out both the law and my principle.

Don't like it? Too bad so sad.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 25, 2022, 06:00:53 PM
Probably the only time Geeky Bugle and I will ever agree on anything, but yeah, when you start trynna measure people's skulls, you've lost everyone but racists and morons.

Also, Zak S. is a manipulative, bullying troll.

Hey, Zak, where did that rumor about you shitting your pants in a fast food joint start? Any truth to that or nah?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 25, 2022, 07:36:14 PM
Since you're all going on and on about being innocent until proven guilty, let's re-look at some false accusations here:


Also, Zak S. is a manipulative, bullying troll.

You've given no proof I manipulated anyone (this requires deception, you haven't proved that.)

You've given no proof I bullied anyone (this requires I unfairly use some power the other party doesn't, you haven't proved that.)

You've given no proof I trolled anyone (this requires I post something merely in order to upset someone for fun, you haven't proved that.)


Quote
Of course, we could point out that the things that he ADMITS to doing with Mandy could be seen as controlling and/or abusive, especially knowing her struggles with mental illness.

Say what those things are.

--
Anyway the various harassers here have no proof, have offered none when asked, and dodge any kind of attempt to hold them responsible for doing that.

And since I'm accusing them of being dishonest, I'm obligated to prove what I say, so here's that proof again:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 26, 2022, 10:56:02 AM
The criminal-shaped accused sexual abuser is still saying things. Little does he know that all modern courts practice physiognomy. The judge and jury are just gonna look at him and instantly decide he's guilty. It'll be great.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 12:32:30 PM
Since you're all going on and on about being innocent until proven guilty, let's re-look at some false accusations here:


Also, Zak S. is a manipulative, bullying troll.

You've given no proof I manipulated anyone (this requires deception, you haven't proved that.)

You've given no proof I bullied anyone (this requires I unfairly use some power the other party doesn't, you haven't proved that.)

You've given no proof I trolled anyone (this requires I post something merely in order to upset someone for fun, you haven't proved that.)


Quote
Of course, we could point out that the things that he ADMITS to doing with Mandy could be seen as controlling and/or abusive, especially knowing her struggles with mental illness.

Say what those things are.

--
Anyway the various harassers here have no proof, have offered none when asked, and dodge any kind of attempt to hold them responsible for doing that.

And since I'm accusing them of being dishonest, I'm obligated to prove what I say, so here's that proof again:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

I actually did provide proof of all three of those accusations, Zak. You said, "nuh-uh", and pretended that it was a rebuttal.

Now, tell me why people say you shit your pants in a fast food joint.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 01:41:30 PM
I actually did provide proof of all three of those accusations, Zak.


Where?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 04:34:56 PM
I actually did provide proof of all three of those accusations, Zak.


Where?

You know where, and if you don't, you can find it. I'm not gonna waste my time linking it after I already posted it, only for you to go, "Nuh-uh. REBUTTED!" again, as regularly and predictably as someone afflicted with Tourette's.

Edit: now, about this persistent rumor that you shat your pants in a fast food joint, back when you were still allowed to attend Gen Con...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 04:42:44 PM


You know where, and if you don't, you can find it.

If you were actually telling the truth you'd be able to show it, easily.

For example, you're dishonest, here's the proof:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 04:55:51 PM


You know where, and if you don't, you can find it.

If you were actually telling the truth you'd be able to show it, easily.

For example, you're dishonest, here's the proof:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Nope. Not it. There's a post where I addressed Manipilation, Lying and trolling one at a time. It's there. I posted it. You pretended to refute it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 05:02:23 PM

Nope. Not it. There's a post where I addressed Manipilation, Lying and trolling one at a time. It's there. I posted it. You pretended to refute it.

Failing to post or link it when asked is proof you're not telling the truth.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 26, 2022, 05:23:22 PM

Nope. Not it. There's a post where I addressed Manipilation, Lying and trolling one at a time. It's there. I posted it. You pretended to refute it.

Failing to post or link it when asked is proof you're not telling the truth.

Umm, no sweatie. It means you're an accused sex offender and have the cranium of a criminal.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 26, 2022, 06:00:59 PM

Nope. Not it. There's a post where I addressed Manipilation, Lying and trolling one at a time. It's there. I posted it. You pretended to refute it.

Failing to post or link it when asked is proof you're not telling the truth.
No, it isn't. You must have heard that "the absence of proof is not proof" before, right?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 06:04:48 PM
No, it isn't. You must have heard that "the absence of proof is not proof" before, right?

Thank you for pointing out that, contra to whatstheirnuts' claim, they did not actually provide proof. The proof is, as you say, "absent".

------

Also, burden of proof is on the accuser, duh. And innocent until proven guilty. So in this case absence of proof of guilt has to be treated as proof of innocence unless you're willing to admit your conviction that someone is guilty is not rational. Like, say, your conviction of guilt is based on the fact they're Jewish or you don't like the shape of their skull.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 26, 2022, 07:12:26 PM
absence of proof of guilt has to be treated as proof of innocence unless you're willing to admit your conviction that someone is guilty is not rational.

That doesn't follow at all. You're wrong.  And you're an asshole.  But let's unpack, shall we?

Absence of proof of guilt has to be treated as proof of innocence? That's just crazy talk.  If I'm pretty sure my neighbor killed his wife and is burying the bodies in the backyard, I don't have to accept his invitations to a weekend camping expedition because it'd be wrong to treat him as a monster based solely on my suspicions.  I'd say I'd be crazy to pretend that he is innocent when we're really just waiting for proof to come in. 

And Zak, you're not the sole judge of 'evidence', even though you claim to be.  And you, demanding that your questions be answered, when you patently refuse to do the same for others is cray-cray.  Remember when discussing your 'rule' about getting a bonus to Diplomacy by playing an instrument and people asked about 'any other relevant rules not quoted in this article that would apply' and your answer was 'read all of 1st edition D&D, all of 3rd edition D&D, read Flailsnails, all 'rules' on my blog, and if you did that and the answer STILL wasn't clear it was because you had secret notebooks that you'd totally share but it's a lot of work so only if they promised to agree that your rule was clear BEFORE you went through that work?  Oh good times! 

Now, let's assume for a moment that someone has proof of your guilt (this is a hypothetical, so don't worry about whether it's true or false - that's not important in this moment).  If they have proof, there are all kinds of reasons that they might not be able or willing to provide it.  That would not mean they don't have it - just that they can't share it.  So in that kind of situation, 'admitting your conviction is not rational' is not what any reasonable person would do.  But ultimately it's just one of the 'false dichotomies' you like to trot out.  Either you're lying or you're crazy.  Excluded middle?  How about 'you're actually guilty'.   How does that not show up in ANY of the range of possibilities. 

Now, I've used the term 'guilty' to mean 'having the quality of which you are accused to have'.  So if it helps to pretend that we're all calling you a nice guy and you want to say you're guilty as charged, go ahead.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 07:25:57 PM
Absence of proof of guilt has to be treated as proof of innocence? That's just crazy talk.

You heard it here first, folks: "Innocent until proven guilty is 'crazy talk'" Burden of proof on accusers is "Crazy talk".

And unlike the camping trip guy example: you were not forced to make a choice about me. You could have very easily not said anything and just thought whatever you think and just not committed defamation by choosing not to speak.

Quote
And you, demanding that your questions be answered, when you patently refuse to do the same for others is cray-cray.

I answer all questions and treat people with respect until the aggressor stops doing the same.

Once you break the rules of fairness you can't then demand your victim play by them.

You and your fellow trolls broke those rules long ago.

Which is a shame, because you seem to honestly really want to discuss some arcane point about game design which I am interested in--but instead of being intellectually honest about it, you trolled about it--and everything else we've ever talked about. So you've exempted yourself from anyone you talk to being obligated to engage in any kind of rational conversation forever--or at least until you take good faith steps to go back and repair the damage you did.

I would love to talk about your weird game design ideas in a good faith environment, but the second I did that you started in with question-dodging and first-strike personal attacks.

You can't bring a gun to a pillow fight and then complain nobody wants to pillow fight you.

Quote
let's assume for a moment that someone has proof of your guilt (this is a hypothetical, so don't worry about whether it's true or false - that's not important in this moment).  If they have proof, there are all kinds of reasons that they might not be able or willing to provide it.

If one of those reasons obtains here then they could just say what the reason is.

But since I know objectively and for a fact I am innocent and I am speaking I can easily say the reason they aren't providing that reason or making that excuse is that evidence doesn't exist.

And to reiterate, you aren't honest here's proof:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 07:50:58 PM

Nope. Not it. There's a post where I addressed Manipilation, Lying and trolling one at a time. It's there. I posted it. You pretended to refute it.

Failing to post or link it when asked is proof you're not telling the truth.

It isn't. Simply repeating things doesn't make them true, Zak. It's in the thread. You responded to it, so I know you saw it. Nobody is hiding it from you, and your acting as though they are is further proof of your dishonesty.

In this thread, I specifically cited examples of your bullying, manipulating and trolling, in a single post. And even explained what I was doing as I did it. Either you remember, and you're lying, or you legitimately don't remember, which is odd, because it wasn't very long ago.

But I'm comfortable with people reading this thread and deciding whether I'm being truthful or not.

On a somewhat related note, I think I've figured out part of your strategy for manipulating others. You simply keep haranguing people with the same shit over and over, until they get tired of talking to a wall and piss off to find more worthwhile pursuits. The you claim "victory", to whoever is still around reading your claptrap.

There are some pretty clear patterns that emerge when one observes the Zakposting for a while.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 08:04:20 PM
In this thread, I specifically cited examples of your bullying, manipulating and trolling, in a single post.

...which apparently nobody can find.

Including you, because while you have time to keep reading what I write and posting you don't have time to find it.

Also it appears to me that it's not just me who says you didn't provide proof, but also now your fellow trolles HappyDaze and DeadDMWalking

Because they've moved on to claiming its ok to accuse without proof.

About things on the internet.

Where everything's recorded.

Right here.

In this thread.

Which we're posting on.

Where you're claiming there's some proof.

That you for some reason can't find.

Still.

After several more posts.

Whereas it's pretty easy to find proof of you being dishonest. It's right here:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 26, 2022, 08:13:17 PM
There are some pretty clear patterns that emerge when one observes the Zakposting for a while.

518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518..... 518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 08:15:12 PM
In this thread, I specifically cited examples of your bullying, manipulating and trolling, in a single post.

...which apparently nobody can find.

Including you, because while you have time to keep reading what I write and posting you don't have time to find it.

Also it appears to me that it's not just me who says you didn't provide proof, but also now your fellow trolles HappyDaze and DeadDMWalking

Because they've moved on to claiming its ok to accuse without proof.

About things on the internet.

Where everything's recorded.

Right here.

In this thread.

Which we're posting on.

Where you're claiming there's some proof.

That you for some reason can't find.

Still.

After several more posts.

Whereas it's pretty easy to find proof of you being dishonest. It's right here:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Oh, I know right where it is. You pretending that you don't is hilarious and telling. You know this website has a "search" function, right? You can even look at a user's posts, from newest to oldest. I literally found the post in less than two minutes. You can do it, too.

I know you're used to manipulating people in order to get your way, Zak, but I'm not your mentally ill ex.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 08:16:51 PM
There are some pretty clear patterns that emerge when one observes the Zakposting for a while.

518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518..... 518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....

The TV show, "Lost" but it's just Zak repeating "post 518" over and over until the rest of the survivors kill him at the end of the first season
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 26, 2022, 08:18:25 PM
There are some pretty clear patterns that emerge when one observes the Zakposting for a while.

518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518..... 518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....518.....

The TV show, "Lost" but it's just Zak repeating "post 518" over and over until the rest of the survivors kill him at the end of the first season

Feels like purgatory indeed. ;D

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 08:24:14 PM

Oh, I know right where it is. You pretending that you don't is hilarious and telling. You know this website has a "search" function, right? You can even look at a user's posts, from newest to oldest. I literally found the post in less than two minutes.

Then post it.

Because we can't take you at your word since you're a proven liar.

Here's the proof.

Which I will post.

Because when making accusations that are contested it's only fair to post proof.

Like I am about to do now:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 08:30:46 PM
I've already posted it, Zak. I made the statement. You responded to it. I know it's frustrating to you when others can't be manipulated, but, hey, them's the breaks. Your insisting that I re-post something that I posted in this thread not long ago is silly and childish, especially when you already quoted and responded to said statement. Acting as though you haven's seen it now is just straight up lying on your part.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 26, 2022, 08:34:28 PM
You and your fellow trolls broke those rules long ago.

Zak, which 'fellow trolls'?  Because there are a lot of people who asked about your rule saying something like 'from what you've said it sounds like there really is this issue, but in accordance with your request I'm asking you to provide clarifying information before I make an assessment'. 

I would characterize your response to them as 'you haven't attacked anyone else here that didn't agree with me, so you're friends with trolls and none of your questions matter'.  And you know what, your quote above saves me from having to provide the back-and-forth that supports my characterization.  Here you are, calling people trolls, not offering any evidence other than your own experience, which, by your own standards, is not sufficient.  You're supposed to be admitting that you're illogical or something...  That is, if you had a shred of integrity (which you don't). 

Which is a shame, because you seem to honestly really want to discuss some arcane point about game design which I am interested in--but instead of being intellectually honest about it, you trolled about it--and everything else we've ever talked about. So you've exempted yourself from anyone you talk to being obligated to engage in any kind of rational conversation forever--or at least until you take good faith steps to go back and repair the damage you did.

No Zak.  I had the conversation I wanted to have.  I don't think you're a very good game designer.  I don't think your rules are very good.  I'm glad that your players have fun (assuming that's still true and the airplane didn't explode - I think I've seen some evidence that things haven't been without incident), but it is very clear that discussing game design with you is pointless.  Besides being an asshole [I stand by the case I've made elsewhere] you don't understand basic concepts like incentive and worse that that, you're REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD at analogies.  There are so many really good comments by people other than me explaining why your analogies are so bad, and many of them are really funny. 

The thing is, I see you pretending to be a 'reasonable person' and trying to bait people into conversations that are really just designed to stoke your ego and allow you to call everyone else liars, trolls, or idiots (or all three if you really get going).  You know and I know that this isn't my first rodeo.  But there is someone who's stepping into these threads for the first time - maybe they're in high school, maybe they've been coddled to a degree and don't know what they're getting into - and I think they deserve a warning about people like you. 

As I said, I'm confident that when I say you're an asshole I have sufficient evidence that if you were to sue me for defamation I'd win.  Of course, I think if you sue people to keep them from telling others what they think of you, that also makes you an asshole, and you've proven you're willing to do that.  So  rather than say something like 'someone said this bad thing about Zak and I believe it is true and am repeating it because I believe that' I'm a little more circumspect.  I have heard bad things about Zak.  My personal experience with Zak is that he is an asshole.  Even if some of these specific accusations are either untrue or unprovable, based on what I know of Zak I suspect that there's still a fair degree of 'he was being an asshole' that is true from these other people, too. 

Zak, if I'm being honest with you I think the nicest thing I've heard anyone say about you works out to 'I am legally required to tell you that I did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Zak is an asshole in a court of law regarding several specific allegations and therefore I apologize for impugning his character'. 

Talk about damning with faint praise! 

And I still think that you look like an idiot when you try to claim that Mike actually is recommending that anyone sign papers.  For my convenience, here is a quote from the screenshot previously shared:

[quote="Mike (wrathofzombie) Evans"
I want to make it clear that I do not recommend anyone sign any affidavit or contract
without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written
and any ramifications.  Zak's request for this is not part of DIY RPG Productions or bringing
Demon City to completion, nor is it required in any way shape or form to get your receive your
copy of the book once it is released.[/quote]

That you keep insisting that there's a version of that that supports your position that he is secretly recommending people actually sign an affidavit shows you're really bad at understanding basic English.  But hey, if you really think I'm misunderstanding him, why don't you just have him post a clarification.  If you're the stand-up guy you seem to think, I'm sure he'll have no problem taking a few minutes out of his day to help clear up this situation.  And bonus points - if he does come over here and tell me I've misunderstood, I WILL APOLOGIZE for calling you an asshole.   

But I'm not going to hold my breath. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 08:34:43 PM
I've already posted it, Zak.

Surely then someone else reading would be able to identify the proof you claim to have posted.

But they cannot.

Here's the proof you're dishonest, though:




Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 08:41:12 PM
As I said, I'm confident that when I say you're an asshole I have sufficient evidence that if you were to sue me for defamation I'd win.

Oh you've made false factual claims that go far beyond that mere opinion claim, along with a whole mess of trolling:

Just stepping back to your more recent appearance in this thread, you start here:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/375/

First-strike personal attack, then spreading misinformation about you not being a harasser.

Then you didn't engage:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/420/

You still didn’t engage, then you asked a question

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/420/

-This begins a run of defamation:

Your tongue-shoving fantasy, citing a false claim about impersonation, claim that I have “rules” I don’t follow, post 518, then citing Ettin as a source

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/435/

If you were sued it wouldn't be about a silly opinion claim about who is or isn't an asshole. It'd be about the outright lies you told.

Quote
That you keep insisting that there's a version of that that supports your position..

I never said that. I never said anything about Mike supporting my position, baldly and provably.

Despite seeing this quote over and over and complaining that you keep seeing it, you just generated another fantasy world where you think I made some statement about Mike "supporting" something.

Here's the proof again:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


You got caught again.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 26, 2022, 08:50:27 PM
I'm so confused about what you think the thing you keep posting says. You've quote unattributed quotes, you've got parentheticals that seem to have been dropped, you're including comments by both Tubesock Army and me, and apparently you're not even claiming that we're not right that Mike recommends people not sign bullshit legal papers. 

Well Zak, I'm going to have to take a page from your book and just admit that I never claimed to be good at understanding idiots. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 08:52:28 PM
I'm so confused about what you think the thing you keep posting says. You've quote unattributed quotes, you've got parentheticals that seem to have been dropped, you're including comments by both Tubesock Army and me, and apparently you're not even claiming that we're not right that Mike recommends people not sign bullshit legal papers. 

Well Zak, I'm going to have to take a page from your book and just admit that I never claimed to be good at understanding idiots.

Your lie was:

I (Zak) said that Mike recommended someone sign something.

Here's proof you told that lie:
Quote
...you try to claim that Mike actually is recommending that anyone sign papers....

I then posted my quote.

Which does not have me (Zak) claiming that.

I never once claimed, anywhere that Mike recommended somebody sign something.

That is you caught lying.

Repeatedly.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 09:08:27 PM
I've already posted it, Zak.

Surely then someone else reading would be able to identify the proof you claim to have posted.

But they cannot.

Here's the proof you're dishonest, though:




Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Why would someone else be required to link the post that you are demanding to see? The post that is still up, not hidden nor edited, from the time when you read and responded to it? Your reasoning is getting flimsier with each post, Zak. Because no one will do something for you which you are quite capable of easily and quickly doing yourself, you claim that thing cannot be done? That is downright bizarre, and demonstrably false.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 09:20:52 PM
Why would someone else be required to link the post that you are demanding to see?

They're not required but it would end the issue immediately.

There's an upside to posting it and no downside (especially since you said you already found it, there's no cost to you to post this alleged proof.)

It's like repeatedly claiming you have a tape of a robbery and not showing it.

And, apparently, nobody else knows what you're talking about either.

On the other hand, here's undeniable proof of you being dishonest:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE on August 26, 2022, 09:27:14 PM

I fuck dogs.


Wow.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 09:30:54 PM

I fuck dogs.


Wow.

Big if true
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 09:33:10 PM
Why would someone else be required to link the post that you are demanding to see?

They're not required but it would end the issue immediately.

There's an upside to posting it and no downside (especially since you said you already found it, there's no cost to you to post this alleged proof.)

It's like repeatedly claiming you have a tape of a robbery and not showing it.

And, apparently, nobody else knows what you're talking about either.

On the other hand, here's undeniable proof of you being dishonest:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

There's also no downside to your going ahead and taking the two minutes to find it yourself, Zak. Wonder why you won't? You always say the burden of proof is on the accuser, and you're accusing me of lying, so it's pretty obvious that, according to your own standards of fairness, you should link it yourself.

Where your analogy fails is that I already played the tape of the robbery, and it's still up for everyone to see. Your claiming it doesn't exist, when it's on public display for you or anyone else to view whenever you like, is just dishonest.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 09:37:33 PM
There's also no downside to your going ahead and taking the two minutes to find it yourself, Zak.

It isn't there.

And since the burden of proof is on the accuser and you made the first strike at me, accusing me of bullying, manipulating and trolling, the only way to resolve the logical impasse in any other way than to assume I am innocent (since not proven guilty) is for you to find what I (and everyone reading) realizes doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 26, 2022, 10:00:09 PM
There's also no downside to your going ahead and taking the two minutes to find it yourself, Zak.

It isn't there.

And since the burden of proof is on the accuser and you made the first strike at me, accusing me of bullying, manipulating and trolling, the only way to resolve the logical impasse in any other way than to assume I am innocent (since not proven guilty) is for you to find what I (and everyone reading) realizes doesn't exist.

The post I made, where I specifically laid out the case for you engaging in manipulation, bullying and trolling, and explained point-by-point what I was doing, IS in this thread. I'm convinced that your denial of this is insincere, but I'm going to let you keep on denying it because I'm OK with people either looking through the thread or searching my post history to find it, if they're so inclined (I'm not very prolific here, won't be hard). I think you're just making yourself look dishonest and/or foolish and/or nuts by denying something that anyone can see for themselves (and, again, I invite anyone to do so). I have nothing to hide, and I've offered more than enough information for anyone to quickly and easily locate the post in question.

As to your second point, you're being dishonest again. I'm not directing you or anyone else to the post to re-litigate it. You already denied the accusations, well, you claim to have "rebutted" them, a point upon which we obviously disagree. I am not re-stating those allegations. I stated them already, supported them already, and still stand by them. That is a separate issue from the one we are discussing now. Which is that I am stating that I laid out evidence in that post which I feel supports my assertions that you are a manipulative, bullying troll. You are claiming that post does not exist. You are the one accusing me of lying, you need to post proof of that, or else, by your own rules and standards, be proven a liar. In fact, I'll go ahead and state for the record now that, since the post does exist, and can be viewed, in this thread, by anyone on this forum, at any time, and that you haven't posted proof that it does not exist, that you are obviously lying, and nothing else you say can, or should, be taken seriously. You made the rules, Zak, I'm just playing he game.

Remember, Zak, I'm not trying to convince you that the post exists. I think you know it does, and are simply being dishonest. You're intentionally arguing in bad faith, but, hey, that's on you, and I really don't care. I'm merely pointing out that the post where I call you out for being a manipulative, bullying, troll, and post point-by-point support for that claim (which you disagree with, as is your prerogative), does in fact exist. Your claims to the contrary, when anyone can see for themselves that it is true, just illustrate why people can't stand you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 26, 2022, 10:04:56 PM

The post I made, where I specifically laid out the case for you engaging in manipulation, bullying and trolling, and explained point-by-point what I was doing, IS in this thread.

You're making a claim that this post exists.

You're not supporting it with proof (which would be easy if it did exist, as you claim, and that you found it after 2 minutes, which you recently claimed).

If you don't want to prove it but want to rely on everyone's estimation of your honesty, that's your choice.

I can prove you are dishonest, however. Here:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

I am happy to let people decide from there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on August 26, 2022, 11:45:25 PM

I fuck dogs.


Wow.

OK, I think at this point you're not really contributing anything to the conversation in this thread. Don't post on this thread again.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 01:16:39 AM

The post I made, where I specifically laid out the case for you engaging in manipulation, bullying and trolling, and explained point-by-point what I was doing, IS in this thread.

You're making a claim that this post exists.

You're not supporting it with proof (which would be easy if it did exist, as you claim, and that you found it after 2 minutes, which you recently claimed).

If you don't want to prove it but want to rely on everyone's estimation of your honesty, that's your choice.

I can prove you are dishonest, however. Here:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

I am happy to let people decide from there.

What you're doing is refusing to look at the post, and then claiming that it doesn't exist, because you can't see it. I've told you, plainly and repeatedly, how you (or anyone else, for that matter) can quickly and easily see this post for yourself. I have withheld nothing, hidden nothing. The fact that you refuse to look at anything not carried right up to you and placed at your feet is hilarious. It's like we're chilling at my house, playing Smash Bros, and you ask for a beer. I tell you they're in the fridge, help yourself. You refuse to get up off the couch and walk to the kitchen, instead insisting that there is no beer in there, despite the fact that it's fully stocked with ice-cold brewskis. This intentional dishonesty really casts everything you say, have ever said, or ever will say in doubt.

Again, the crux of this conflict is this: you are claiming that a post doesn't exist, even though it plainly does. This is bizarre behavior, though tbh it's not really surprising coming from you. That's also gaslighting 101. So now, I'm going to say that you are a gaslighter (which is really just a strange way of saying liar), in addition to being a manipulative, trolling bully.

Weird, this seems like just the sort of behavior one would expect from the someone who preys on vulnerable, emotionally unstable partners. Huh, how about that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 01:52:01 AM

What you're doing is refusing to look at the post, and then claiming that it doesn't exist

Prove it. Burden of proof is on the accuser.

It's pretty easy to prove you're a liar, here:





Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 10:42:55 AM
Zakbot is glitching again.

Allow me to sum up Zak's arguments in this thread, and everywhere else he posts:
Quote from: Zak
(https://img.fae.ro/d8332d.jpeg)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 27, 2022, 11:36:25 AM
It may be a pipe to everyone else, but that's what Zak's left-handed scissors look like.  Why are you trying to keep people from having left-handed scissors?  What kind of jerk doesn't let people have left-handed scissors?  Left-handed people are people, too, you monster.

Edit - For those that are reading along at home and aren't interested in doing the research, there are several posts that would qualify as Tubesock Army as explaining why Zak is an asshole.  Probably the most relevant is #486 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1226091/#msg1226091). 

Zak's primary response is in #489 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1226159/#msg1226159).  I would qualify his responses as incomplete and a failure to rebut either the accusations of specific behaviors or the supporting argument that it means Zak is an asshole.  In fact, Zak tries to claim that the argumentative tricks he employs like demanding whether you are lying or crazy are instead him steadfastly advocating for truth in the dark, dangerous, interwebs. 

The flaws in Zak's logic are myriad.  For example, he claims that it is impossible to bully someone because we are all equally powerful - we all have access to a keyboard and this site, and without a power disparity, it is impossible to be a bully.  Of course, actual definitions of 'bully' don't require different power-levels; merely the willingness to do things that the other is not. 

Quote from: From Merriam Webster

bully
a blustering, browbeating person
especially : one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable;

This would be an example where Zak says he has rebutted an argument, but in fact he has attempted to redefine the term. 

Which is also one of the reasons that Tubesock Army says Zak is an asshole:

What's funny about Zak is most people find him to be an insufferable asshole, and upon hearing that, he demands an exacting definition of "insufferable asshole", conforming of course to his made-up-on-the-spot rules, so he can "debunk" said definition, without realizing that this behavior is, in a nutshell, why most people find him to be an insufferable asshole.

So Zak, congratulations.  You've done it - you've proven that you are an asshole within the definitions that were laid out in advance by demonstrating the behaviors that were determined to qualify. Of course YOU don't THINK that you doing the things that people tell you makes you an asshole OUGHT to qualify (something something, I'm not an asshole, so their criteria are wrong), but that's not how things work for other people.  If someone tells you what their definition of an asshole is and you say 'AND THAT'S WHAT I DO, so clearly that's not what an asshole does', you did not win the way you think you did. 

Good show. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on August 27, 2022, 12:20:28 PM
Tangentially related, but Ozreth over at TBP just ate a permaban for the high crime of defending Zak.

Evidently just mentioning Zak makes the TBP admin so trembly that they didn't actually flag Ozreth as banned. You can't access his profile, and his ban notice came from the Forum Administrator (lol). But he lacks the red banned tag.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 03:15:25 PM
Edit - For those that are reading along at home and aren't interested in doing the research, there are several posts that would qualify as Tubesock Army as explaining why Zak is an asshole. 

Tubesock's claim is not simply "asshole" ( a matter of opinion) but a fact claim:

Tubesock claims bullying, trolling and manipulation, which are specific.

Quote
Zak's primary response is in #489 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1226159/#msg1226159).  I would qualify his responses as incomplete and a failure to rebut either the accusations of specific behaviors or the supporting argument that it means Zak is an asshole.  In fact, Zak tries to claim that the argumentative tricks he employs like demanding whether you are lying or crazy are instead him steadfastly advocating for truth in the dark, dangerous, interwebs. 

You're not saying why that argument I made is bad or wrong.

Here's one attempt you make, but you don't finish it:

Quote
The flaws in Zak's logic are myriad.  For example, he claims that it is impossible to bully someone because we are all equally powerful - we all have access to a keyboard and this site, and without a power disparity, it is impossible to be a bully.  Of course, actual definitions of 'bully' don't require different power-levels; merely the willingness to do things that the other is not. 

Quote from: From Merriam Webster

bully
a blustering, browbeating person
especially : one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable;

Huge problems here since I don't fit the definition:

You didn't prove "blustering". And it's impossible for you to point to an example of "bluster" that doesn't equally apply to your and Tubesock's own statements.

You didn't prove "browbeating".. And it's impossible for you to point to an example of "browbeating" that doesn't equally apply to your and Tubesock's own statements.

You guys are undeniably "habitually insulting" and far more than me. You were namecalling right out of the gate. You guys initiated the insults, which is not something you can deny, since it's all recorded.

Do you really want to pretend you haven't "habitually insulted" me? Really?

You haven't proved I was cruel (though you have both described yourself as taking enjoyment from doing harm, which is cruel).

You haven't proved I was threatening.

And you definitely haven't shown anyone in this thread as "weaker, smaller or in some way vulnerable" to me.

Quote
This would be an example where Zak says he has rebutted an argument, but in fact he has attempted to redefine the term. 

I just used the definition you provided to prove you are lying.

But you keep doing the same thing over and over--

Trying to shift focus from a serious, real, and measurable issue (honesty) to a silly subjective one (who you think is an asshole).

Here's more proof you two are dishonest, in case anyone missed it:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 27, 2022, 03:31:09 PM
I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.  Telling you that you are an asshole (and telling people why you're an asshole) is pro-social.  And unlike you, I believe people are capable of making up their own minds based on evidence, so I'm satisfied that conversation serves as the warning about your toxicity that I hoped it would. 

Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.  This is your thread and everyone here knows what they're getting themselves into.

Remind me - are you still contending that people here are calling you an asshole unfairly?  Or are you admitting that you are an asshole but trying to claim that so is everyone else? 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2022, 03:33:45 PM
I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.  Telling you that you are an asshole (and telling people why you're an asshole) is pro-social.  And unlike you, I believe people are capable of making up their own minds based on evidence, so I'm satisfied that conversation serves as the warning about your toxicity that I hoped it would. 

Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.  This is your thread and everyone here knows what they're getting themselves into.

Remind me - are you still contending that people here are calling you an asshole unfairly?  Or are you admitting that you are an asshole but trying to claim that so is everyone else?

Objection!

I'm not an asshole, nor a pussy, I'm a dick!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 03:36:59 PM
I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

Incorrect:

I didn't begin this aggression--I couldn't have. Obvious reason: You knew who I was and attacked me long before I had ever heard your name.

And you went beyond expressing a preference. You habitually make personal attacks on people who like other kinds of games. You go beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that" (which are fine things to say) and go (habitually) into statements like "People play other kinds of games have x or y personality problem". And these statements aren't ones you can prove.

That's habitually insulting. And, again, you did that to me and others long before I even knew who you were.

Quote
So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.

You haven't proved it's "warranted". Only that you think it is because it's your opinion (and you also have no facts to justify it), which is what a bully would say.

I have, however, repeatedly proved you are dishonest.

That doesn't require pop psychology or quoting the particular dictionary definition I want to use, you baldly falied to tell the truth and after being caught haven't apologized or admitted the error.

Which is manipulative.

And bullying.

And trolling.

Quote
Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.

Since I have no toxicity that's not valid either.

You are doing the same thing as before, so I'll just quote myself:

Quote


But you keep doing the same thing over and over--

Trying to shift focus from a serious, real, and measurable issue (honesty) to a silly subjective one (who you think is an asshole).

Here's more proof you two are dishonest, in case anyone missed it:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 27, 2022, 03:58:01 PM

And you went beyond expressing a preference. You habitually make personal attacks on people who like other kinds of games. You go beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that" (which are fine things to say) and go (habitually) into statements like "People play other kinds of games have x or y personality problem". And these statements aren't ones you can prove.

Are you lying or are you admitting that you don't have critica thinking skills?

This is very clearly an accusation.  I've said a lot of things and I KNOW I haven't said that people who like a particular type of game have a personality problem.  Now, to even maintain any semblance of credibility and fairness, I know you're going to quote me saying that.  Otherwise you'd be a lying liar and we're supposed to ignore everything you say ever because you've proven yourself to be a troll. 

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.   I'm sure you will have no problem providing the quote.  I'll wait. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:05:43 PM

And you went beyond expressing a preference. You habitually make personal attacks on people who like other kinds of games. You go beyond "I like this" and "I don't like that" (which are fine things to say) and go (habitually) into statements like "People play other kinds of games have x or y personality problem". And these statements aren't ones you can prove.

Are you lying or are you admitting that you don't have critica thinking skills?

This is very clearly an accusation.  I've said a lot of things and I KNOW I haven't said that people who like a particular type of game have a personality problem.  Now, to even maintain any semblance of credibility and fairness, I know you're going to quote me saying that.  Otherwise you'd be a lying liar and we're supposed to ignore everything you say ever because you've proven yourself to be a troll. 

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.   I'm sure you will have no problem providing the quote.  I'll wait.

I'm always happy to play fair:

Address all the points I've raised so far (and ever since you began your attacks on me, years ago) and I'll be happy to chase down a quote for you.

If you don't want to play fair, you don't get to make that request though, sorry.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:15:36 PM
Well, Zak, before you got unpersoned (lol) out of the OSR and the gaming hobby (let's face it, you're no longer part of it in any meaningful sense, and that's unlikely to change, ever), your notoriety and status in the industry (a jillion awards!) definitely put you on a different footing than those you harassed. This is why I called you a bully, and I stand by that statement. Your ability to bully has been severely curtailed (again, I say lol), but your instincts and behavior have not changed one bit.

I stand by every statement I've made about you in this thread, and everywhere else. The more you talk, or post, the more you validate all criticism of you.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:20:49 PM
...put you on a different footing than those you harassed.

You just lied again, claiming I harassed people, so the premise of that argument is not valid.

I successfully sued someone who made the same claim. Nobody's ever been able to find a single instance of me harassing anyone, including the most aggressive collector-of-Zak-quotes in history (Ettin).

Moreover you can't simultaneously claim:

-What makes you a bully is fact-checking people you have power over

-You have no power over anyone int his thread

-Your interactions int his thread are proof you are a bully

...that doesn't make any sense.

You're essentially claiming disagreeing with you, an anonymous and provably dishonesttroll, is bullying.

But to shift the focus back to what matters (your claims can't be trusted), here's proof you are dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:28:01 PM
...put you on a different footing than those you harassed.

You just lied again, claiming I harassed people, so the premise of that argument is not valid.

I successfully sued someone who made the same claim. Nobody's ever been able to find a single instance of me harassing anyone.

No lies, you have a long and well-documented history of harassment. And since you are admittedly not talking to me, but posting for the benefit of those who might see this and be led astray, I will do the same: Google Zak S., you will find a clear history of manipulation, abuse, bullying and lies. Don't take my word for it. And whatever you do, don't take Zak's.

I can see now why you insist on having evidence laid at your feet in this thread. You are attempting to keep the focus on a very narrow set of criteria. I, on the other had, encourage people to look far and wide, at the totality of your history and behavior online, and elsewhere. Doing so will tell a story that you can't wish away into the cornfield, Zak.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:30:56 PM
No lies, you have a long and well-documented history of harassment.

No, I have a long history of trolls claiming I do and then failing to produce any proof of this alleged decades-plus history ( i started RPG blogging in 2009) and then failing to produce any proof when put on the spot.

This includes in court, where proving I harassed anyone would've been very helpful to them.

They couldn't and you couldn't. You are legitimately just echoing the claims made by the guy this thread is about. The guy who lost.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:36:56 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:39:14 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Oh you did? Where?

Quote
Googlr Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.

Well the opposition lawyers keep googling it and it told them "lots of trolls say this but none of them provide proof".

If you want to make the argumentum ad populum fallacy, then you're claiming to believe "all smear campaigns are true".

But to shift the focus back to what matters (your claims can't be trusted), here's proof you are dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:41:48 PM
It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:42:05 PM
It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

Where?

Literally nobody but you seems to know where this post is.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:43:26 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Oh you did? Where?

Quote
Googlr Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.

Well the opposition lawyers keep googling it and it told them "lots of trolls say this but none of them provide proof".

If you want to make the argumentum ad populum fallacy, then you're claiming to believe "all smear campaigns are true".

But to shift the focus back to what matters (your claims can't be trusted), here's proof you are dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

"lots of"

Bro you've won ONE suit, in a country that is notoriously easy to win these types of suits in. Might not wanna count all those chickens just yet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:44:56 PM
It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

Where?

Literally nobody but you seems to know where this post is.

That's funny, you quoted it and someone else linked it today, in a post which you also quoted. Man, for someone who claims never to have seen this post, you've sure engaged with it multiple times, LMAO.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:47:39 PM

"lots of"

Yes lots of trolls saying the same thing is how a smear campagng works.

Quote
Bro you've won ONE suit, in a country that is notoriously easy to win these types of suits in.

Actually that's just a meme a Something Awful dude posted. Australia's defamation laws are a lot like the UK and other countries in the english-speaking RPG sphere.

But let's not shift away from the important thing:

You are an anonymous internet troll and do not make reliably true claims. Proof:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:49:06 PM
Be sure and Google Zak S. everyone, and there are also online repositories of his online behavior, such as this one:
https://tabletopsmissingstairs.blogspot.com/2019/02/zak-s-and-other-horrible-tabletop-people.html

Sadly, not all of these links are current, but enough to gove you a picture of Zak's behavior, WELL before the Mandy allegations.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:50:22 PM
It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

Where?

Literally nobody but you seems to know where this post is.

That's funny, you quoted it and someone else linked it today, in a post which you also quoted. Man, for someone who claims never to have seen this post, you've sure engaged with it multiple times, LMAO.

Oh the only post by you I referenced and quoted was fully addressed in post 625.

Since you are not now addressing the claims I made, you're conceding they are true and so your claim isn't valid.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:51:33 PM
Be sure and Google Zak S. everyone, and there are also online repositories of his online behavior, such as this one...

Yeah I sued someone saying that shit and won.

You're literally just pointing to a troll claiming I did some things and then totally failing (despite the fact this is the internet and they've had over a decade to find it) not backing it up with any proof.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:53:27 PM
It's that post you keep claiming doesn't exist, even though you quoted it. Go get you some.

Where?

Literally nobody but you seems to know where this post is.

That's funny, you quoted it and someone else linked it today, in a post which you also quoted. Man, for someone who claims never to have seen this post, you've sure engaged with it multiple times, LMAO.

Oh the only post by you I referenced and quoted was fully addressed in post 625.

Since you are not now addressing the claims I made, you're conceding they are true and so your claim isn't valid.

I conceded no such thing, Zak, if you have to put words in other people's mouths, your arguments must be very weak indeed.

And while you may have "addressed" my claims, you did not, to my satisfaction (nor, I'll wager to anyone's but your own), "rebut" or "refute" them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:54:51 PM

And while you may have "addressed" my claims, you did not, to my satisfaction (nor, I'll wager to anyone's but your own), "rebut" or "refute" them.

Then address them and say, one by one, the reason my points aren't valid.

Since burden of proof is on you, the accuser, until you do that it's irrational to claim your accusation is valid.

Do you have to do these things because your victim asked you to?

No you don't have to do anything.

But if you don't it means there is no rational reason to believe you. Especially in light of how you got caught lying many times before.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 04:57:22 PM
Be sure and Google Zak S. everyone, and there are also online repositories of his online behavior, such as this one...

Yeah I sued someone saying that shit and won.

You're literally just pointing to a troll claiming I did some things and then totally failing (despite the fact this is the internet and they've had over a decade to find it) not backing it up with any proof.

I love this. There are many different links there, to accounts by LOTS OF (actually used correctly this time) people. In fact, the link to Ettin's blog post is no longer working, so, no, I'm specifically NOT pointing to Ettin here. Which you know, but again, you're lying in the hopes that no one will click that link, or any of the links it contains. And they really should, because it contains years and years of testimonials, many with receipts, about your twisted behavior and odious personality.

Welcome to the light, Zak. I'm sure you won't enjoy it. But, then, you're always welcome to scurry back under the refrigerator.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 04:59:47 PM
I love this. There are many different links there, to accounts by LOTS OF (actually used correctly this time) people.

Why on earth would someone making accusations of internet harassment rely on "accounts"?

With internet harassment you don't rely an "account" (a claim something happened), you don't tell a story, you just post the proof. It's the internet, it got recorded.

Ten years and no recordings?

Ettin claimed these accounts were true, got sued about that, it didn't work out for him.

There's no need for me to post a mere account of you being dishonest, for example, I can prove it by posting it:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:01:02 PM

And while you may have "addressed" my claims, you did not, to my satisfaction (nor, I'll wager to anyone's but your own), "rebut" or "refute" them.

Then address them and say, one by one, the reason my points aren't valid.

Since burden of proof is on you, the accuser, until you do that it's irrational to claim your accusation is valid.

Do you have to do these things because your victim asked you to?

No you don't have to do anything.

But if you don't it means there is no rational reason to believe you. Especially in light of how you got caught lying many times before.

Why, though, Zak? It doesn't matter. You will simply move the goalposts again, or redefine terms. You will never concede anything, Zak, because you're incapable of recognizing when you are wrong. That's why I have no need or desire to convince you of anything. Instead, I post for others, that they may be given sufficient information to avoid you.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:02:32 PM
Why, though, Zak? It doesn't matter.

It only matters if you want to make a rational case.

But you are a troll so you don't you just want to type.

Proof:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:03:31 PM
I love this. There are many different links there, to accounts by LOTS OF (actually used correctly this time) people.

Why on earth would someone making accusations of internet harassment rely on "accounts"?

With internet harassment you don't rely an "account" (a claim something happened), you don't tell a story, you just post the proof. It's the internet, it got recorded.

Ten years and no recordings?

Ettin claimed these accounts were true, got sued about that, it didn't work out for him.

There's no need for me to post an account of you being dishonest, for example, I can prove it by posting it:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Because, Zak, there are two alternatives here: You're either the victim of a vast, far-reaching, and long-standing conspiracy to defame you, or you're just a prick. I'm kind of an Occam's razor kind of guy. And Occam's razor says you're a prick.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:04:23 PM
You know, you could just make that glitch part of your sig. It would save you C+Ping it over and over.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:05:08 PM
Because, Zak, there are two alternatives here: You're either the victim of a vast, far-reaching, and long-standing conspiracy to defame you, or you're just a prick.

You've ignored the obvious third option: there's no conspiracy, it's just the internet doing what it does all the time: spread misinformation through normal social processes and people trolling.

Also, this post proves you just admitted you have no rational reason to believe I'm guilty and are relying on the Something Awful (et al) trolls. So the previous posts where you claim to have proof of me doing anything bad are invalidated.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:06:34 PM
It's also funny how I can list multiple examples of your being a total dickhead at any given time, while you just have to keep spamming the same exact post over and over. That all you got?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:08:01 PM
Because, Zak, there are two alternatives here: You're either the victim of a vast, far-reaching, and long-standing conspiracy to defame you, or you're just a prick.

You've ignored the obvious third option: there's no conspiracy, it's just the internet doing what it does all the time: spread misinformation through normal social processes and people trolling.

Weird, even polarizing figures like Pundit, Venger, Grim Jim et. al., have many supporters and fans. You could never, and will never, garner the type of support they do. So much for the internet doing that to people "all the time".
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:09:58 PM
It's also funny how I can list multiple examples of your being a total dickhead at any given time, while you just have to keep spamming the same exact post over and over. That all you got?

You haven't posted any examples of anything except people troliing.

The truth is repetitive and sometimes dull, lies allow access to an infinity of options.

I have only one: the truth.

I proved you aren't honest. My goal is not to entertain, just to inform. Here's the proof you're dishonest:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:12:27 PM

Weird, even polarizing figures like Pundit, Venger, Grim Jim et. al., have many supporters and fans. You could never, and will never, garner the type of support they do. So much for the internet doing that to people "all the time".

So you're saying that somehow therefore everything googleable about these people is true?

That's a logical impossibility since they say mutually exclusive things.

Your claim isn't valid.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:18:21 PM

Weird, even polarizing figures like Pundit, Venger, Grim Jim et. al., have many supporters and fans. You could never, and will never, garner the type of support they do. So much for the internet doing that to people "all the time".

So you're saying that somehow therefore everything googleable about these people is true?

That's a logical impossibility since they say mutually exclusive things.

Your claim isn't valid.

IS that what I said? It isn't, is it? Further proof of your dishonesty, as you literally quoted my post, and then lied about what it said right after.

You are one weird mf, dude.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:22:57 PM

Weird, even polarizing figures like Pundit, Venger, Grim Jim et. al., have many supporters and fans. You could never, and will never, garner the type of support they do. So much for the internet doing that to people "all the time".

So you're saying that somehow therefore everything googleable about these people is true?

That's a logical impossibility since they say mutually exclusive things.

Your claim isn't valid.

IS that what I said? It isn't, is it? Further proof of your dishonesty, as you literally quoted my post, and then lied about what it said right after.

You are one weird mf, dude.

I'm willing to play fair, perhaps I misinterpreted, your post apparently says:

--There's a number of other controversial creators besides me
(Granted.)

--I will never have as much support as them
(tangent question A: By what specific measure?)
(tangent question B: What do we get if you're wrong? What's your accountability mechanism if your prediction is false?)

--And therefore...the secondhand-and-proved-false-after-a-lawsuit claims you are relying on about me are true because...

Because what exactly?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:29:04 PM

Weird, even polarizing figures like Pundit, Venger, Grim Jim et. al., have many supporters and fans. You could never, and will never, garner the type of support they do. So much for the internet doing that to people "all the time".

So you're saying that somehow therefore everything googleable about these people is true?

That's a logical impossibility since they say mutually exclusive things.

Your claim isn't valid.

IS that what I said? It isn't, is it? Further proof of your dishonesty, as you literally quoted my post, and then lied about what it said right after.

You are one weird mf, dude.

I'm willing to play fair, perhaps I misinterpreted, your post apparently says:

--There's a number of other controversial creators besides me
(Granted.)

--I will never have as much support as them
(tangent question A: By what specific measure?)
(tangent question B: What do we get if you're wrong? What's your accountability mechanism if your prediction is false?)

--And therefore...the secondhand-and-proved-false-after-a-lawsuit claims you are relying on about me are true because...

Because what exactly?

Changing the wording of what I said is not "playing fair", you gaslighting dildo, it's dishonest. It's lying. You're literally saying, "these words are actually these other words." No, dipshit, they're the exact words I typed, nothing less, nothing more. My statement, made in plain and proper English, contained no secret messages or hidden subtext. The fact that you have TWICE now, intentionally misrepresented what was said, in order to further your own narrative, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here.

Thank you for again proving my point.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:31:36 PM
Changing the wording of what I said is not "playing fair", you gaslighting dildo, it's dishonest.

If I made a mistake of interpretation then your next move is simple:

Please help us all out to understand what you meant and now type what you really meant in another way, because clearly I misunderstood.

Once you do that, I will apologize if it doesn't match what I said and then we can move on to discussing the message you intended to communicate.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:33:08 PM
Changing the wording of what I said is not "playing fair", you gaslighting dildo, it's dishonest.

If I made a mistake of interpretation then please help us all out to understand what you and type what you really meant.

Once you do that, I will apologize if it doesn't match what I said and then we can move on to discussing the message you intended to communicate.

There's nothing to "interpret", as long as you can read. And so far, you're the only one pretending to be confused, so maybe don't use terms like "us all" and "we". You got a mouse in your pocket, or something?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:34:18 PM
Changing the wording of what I said is not "playing fair", you gaslighting dildo, it's dishonest.

If I made a mistake of interpretation then please help us all out to understand what you and type what you really meant.

Once you do that, I will apologize if it doesn't match what I said and then we can move on to discussing the message you intended to communicate.

There's nothing to "interpret", as long as you can read. And so far, you're the only one pretending to be confused, so maybe don't use terms like "us all" and "we". You got a mouse in your pocket, or something?

Oh well, I guess we (me and anyone else reading) will never know what you meant.

That's fine. If you want to leave it unclear, ok.


Much more important point is, you're dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:39:24 PM
Changing the wording of what I said is not "playing fair", you gaslighting dildo, it's dishonest.

If I made a mistake of interpretation then please help us all out to understand what you and type what you really meant.

Once you do that, I will apologize if it doesn't match what I said and then we can move on to discussing the message you intended to communicate.

There's nothing to "interpret", as long as you can read. And so far, you're the only one pretending to be confused, so maybe don't use terms like "us all" and "we". You got a mouse in your pocket, or something?

Oh well, I guess we (me and anyone else reading) will never know what you meant.

That's fine. If you want to leave it unclear, ok.


Much more important point is, you're dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Actually, I'm pretty confident that most people will understand that post just fine. But, hey, assuming that you speak authoritatively on behalf of other people is just further evidence of your extreme narcissism.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 05:40:55 PM
I'm also not sure spamming a post where you tell people they need therapy for disagreeing with you is the flex you think it is, but go off.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:40:57 PM
Actually, I'm pretty confident that most people will...

Quote
...assuming that you speak authoritatively on behalf of other people is just further evidence of your extreme narcissism.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:42:03 PM
I'm also not sure spamming a post where you tell people they need therapy for disagreeing with you is the flex you think it is, but go off.

No it was objectively not merely about disagreeing with me it was about spreading misinformation.


That's easy to check:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

As for therapy, you just diagnosed yourself with extreme narcissism.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 05:46:17 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.
I did as you suggested and Googled Zak S. There's a lot there, and none of it paints him in a positive light.

One statement I found indicated that Zak made < 30k in 2019 and almost nothing in 2020. Is that true Zak?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 05:50:37 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.
I did as you suggested and Googled Zak S. There's a lot there, and none of it paints him in a positive light.

That's 100% inaccurate. It's child's play to find, to pick a random example, my ex's former friends responding to Mandy's bullshit and they certainly paint me in a positive light.

You're not telling the truth.

Quote
One statement I found indicated that Zak made < 30k in 2019 and almost nothing in 2020. Is that true Zak?

Of course. That's why I can sue: I have massive damages.

Luckily my friends who actually knew my ex (and, many of them, the RPG sene) all realize this is bullshit and so have helped pay for the lawsuits.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 06:40:07 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.
I did as you suggested and Googled Zak S. There's a lot there, and none of it paints him in a positive light.

That's 100% inaccurate. It's child's play to find, to pick a random example, my ex's former friends responding to Mandy's bullshit and they certainly paint me in a positive light.

You're not telling the truth.

Quote
One statement I found indicated that Zak made < 30k in 2019 and almost nothing in 2020. Is that true Zak?

Of course. That's why I can sue: I have massive damages.

Luckily my friends who actually knew my ex (and, many of them, the RPG sene) all realize this is bullshit and so have helped pay for the lawsuits.
Ok, let me clarify. Nothing that showed up on the first two pages painted you in a positive light.

So as to show your damages, what was your 2018 income? What about in 2021?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 06:43:44 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.
I did as you suggested and Googled Zak S. There's a lot there, and none of it paints him in a positive light.

That's 100% inaccurate. It's child's play to find, to pick a random example, my ex's former friends responding to Mandy's bullshit and they certainly paint me in a positive light.

You're not telling the truth.

Quote
One statement I found indicated that Zak made < 30k in 2019 and almost nothing in 2020. Is that true Zak?

Of course. That's why I can sue: I have massive damages.

Luckily my friends who actually knew my ex (and, many of them, the RPG sene) all realize this is bullshit and so have helped pay for the lawsuits.
Ok, let me clarify. Nothing that showed up on the first two pages painted you in a positive light.

So as to show your damages, what was your 2018 income? What about in 2021?

2018 was much more, my paintings are very expensive so I don't have to sell many to reach 30k.

As for 2021 my earnings were also very small, as are my 2022 earnings.

If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on August 27, 2022, 06:54:06 PM
I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 07:33:51 PM
I'm not. I actually made and backed up my own claims, a fact you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your narrative. Google Zak S., everyone, it'll tell you all you need to know.
I did as you suggested and Googled Zak S. There's a lot there, and none of it paints him in a positive light.

That's 100% inaccurate. It's child's play to find, to pick a random example, my ex's former friends responding to Mandy's bullshit and they certainly paint me in a positive light.

You're not telling the truth.

Quote
One statement I found indicated that Zak made < 30k in 2019 and almost nothing in 2020. Is that true Zak?

Of course. That's why I can sue: I have massive damages.

Luckily my friends who actually knew my ex (and, many of them, the RPG sene) all realize this is bullshit and so have helped pay for the lawsuits.
Ok, let me clarify. Nothing that showed up on the first two pages painted you in a positive light.

So as to show your damages, what was your 2018 income? What about in 2021?

2018 was much more, my paintings are very expensive so I don't have to sell many to reach 30k.

As for 2021 my earnings were also very small, as are my 2022 earnings.

If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
I was honestly trying to evaluate how much all of this has cost you. So in that light, from 2018 to 2019, you lost what percentage of your income? Also, did you put out the same amount of product/labor (paintings, games, whatever else you do for income) in those two years?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 07:35:42 PM

I was honestly trying to evaluate how much all of this has cost you.
Basically everything.

Quote
So in that light, from 2018 to 2019, you lost what percentage of your income? Also, did you put out the same amount of product/labor (paintings, games, whatever else you do for income) in those two years?

Already addressed:
Quote
If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 07:42:22 PM

I was honestly trying to evaluate how much all of this has cost you.
Basically everything.

Quote
So in that light, from 2018 to 2019, you lost what percentage of your income? Also, did you put out the same amount of product/labor (paintings, games, whatever else you do for income) in those two years?

Already addressed:
Quote
If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
What would establish to you that I am playing fair for the purposes of this discussion?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 07:50:32 PM

I was honestly trying to evaluate how much all of this has cost you.
Basically everything.

Quote
So in that light, from 2018 to 2019, you lost what percentage of your income? Also, did you put out the same amount of product/labor (paintings, games, whatever else you do for income) in those two years?

Already addressed:
Quote
If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
What would establish to you that I am playing fair for the purposes of this discussion?

There are some basic ground rules to grown-up conversations in a context where the truth matters, and I will take the trouble to list them and try to phrase them just right if you demonstrate that you'd give a shit if I did and not just waste time.

Here's a way to do that:

Somebodystolemyname above just countered one of your points above.

A show of good faith and playing fair would be to respond to that instead of ignore it:

If you concede the point, apologize for spreading misinformation and erase your previous claim or leave a note on the post pointing out it wasn't true.

If you don't concede, then give them a rational reason why you don't accept it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 08:03:49 PM
I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.
My phone showed 5 entries per page, and that shows up on page 3 as the 11th entry. I didn't browse to page 3.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 08:14:23 PM

I was honestly trying to evaluate how much all of this has cost you.
Basically everything.

Quote
So in that light, from 2018 to 2019, you lost what percentage of your income? Also, did you put out the same amount of product/labor (paintings, games, whatever else you do for income) in those two years?

Already addressed:
Quote
If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
What would establish to you that I am playing fair for the purposes of this discussion?

1. Don't post things you don't believe to be true.
2. When you make a mistake or present misinformation, apologize and go back and change the original post (and any other thing you have control over) to reflect the fact you now accept it's not true. Don't undermine the fix/apology later and don't ever repeat the misinformation.
3. Hold everyone to the same standards, so: if a person you disagree with earns a critique from you, make the same critique of those agreeing with you if they've done the same thing--in the same venue, and also anyone you're neutral, undecided, etc about.
4. Answer questions when asked. If there's some desperate reason you can't answer, say what that is. If you have to leave the conversation, answer the question next time you are able.
5. Don't commit logical fallacies (including the burden of proof fallacy).
6. Apologize if you accidentally or impulsively break a rule and take all steps to fix any damage.
7. In general, interact as if getting to the truth as efficiently as possible is more important than being entertained by posting on an RPG website
8. No first strike personal attacks.

EDIT:
(9. And, as above, respond to points made in response to you, treat them as questions about the why you think your claim is valid considering the  point presented.)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 08:38:28 PM

I was honestly trying to evaluate how much all of this has cost you.
Basically everything.

Quote
So in that light, from 2018 to 2019, you lost what percentage of your income? Also, did you put out the same amount of product/labor (paintings, games, whatever else you do for income) in those two years?

Already addressed:
Quote
If you want me to do the work to get more precise detail than that you're going to have to start playing fair. So far you aren't and you're just basically acting within the (trolly) social norms on this site.
What would establish to you that I am playing fair for the purposes of this discussion?

1. Don't post things you don't believe to be true.
2. When you make a mistake or present misinformation, apologize and go back and change the original post (and any other thing you have control over) to reflect the fact you now accept it's not true. Don't undermine the fix/apology later and don't ever repeat the misinformation.
3. Hold everyone to the same standards, so: if a person you disagree with earns a critique from you, make the same critique of those agreeing with you if they've done the same thing--in the same venue, and also anyone you're neutral, undecided, etc about.
4. Answer questions when asked. If there's some desperate reason you can't answer, say what that is. If you have to leave the conversation, answer the question next time you are able.
5. Don't commit logical fallacies (including the burden of proof fallacy).
6. Apologize if you accidentally or impulsively break a rule and take all steps to fix any damage.
7. In general, interact as if getting to the truth as efficiently as possible is more important than being entertained by posting on an RPG website
8. No first strike personal attacks.

EDIT:
(9. And, as above, respond to points made in response to you, treat them as questions about the why you think your claim is valid considering the  point presented.)
I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel. You've obviously read the room, but you either can't or won't accept what you've found here.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 08:44:45 PM
I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 08:48:18 PM
Actually, I'm pretty confident that most people will...

Quote
...assuming that you speak authoritatively on behalf of other people is just further evidence of your extreme narcissism.

Q.E.D.

Swing and a miss, lame-o.

My being "fairly confident" is not the same as your using the assumptive "we" multiple times on behalf of other people, none of whom have expressed agreement or a desire to be included, and profess that they understand/don't understand something.

It's hilarious how reflexively dishonest you are.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 08:50:44 PM

My being "fairly confident" is not the same as your using the assumptive "we" multiple times on behalf of other people, none of whom have expressed agreement or a desire to be included, and profess that they understand/don't understand something.

Seems like a fine distinction that reasonable people might disagree about.

So instead let's use something cut and dried:

You're dishonest, as proven here



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 09:07:48 PM
I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.
You say this forum ought to be something other than what it is and that people here ought to be responsiblefor what they post. Why do you believe it ought to be that way?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 09:11:36 PM
I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.
You say this forum ought to be something other than what it is and that people here ought to be responsiblefor what they post. Why do you believe it ought to be that way?

Because if they're not it's much easier to do harm to innocent people by spreading misinformation, and there's no significant downside.

(Incidentally, avoiding this "harm" also includes making RPG conversations more useful. It's harder to have a circular, tedious RPG conversation when peoples' ability to lie is curtailed.)

But also, this critique is by no means limited to this particular RPG forum.


EDIT:
It's also perhaps worth pointing out that I'm not primarily here for the purpose of trying to get that to change (it's always been hopeless) it's simply to deal with an unfortunate consequence of the lack of accountability here, which is: bad actors who smear people are here and are not reliably treated like what they are or tagged as that.

Obviously the prevailing norms here make that difficult (thus all the repetition) but it's a moral obligation. Fact-checking is good.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on August 27, 2022, 10:44:50 PM
I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.
My phone showed 5 entries per page, and that shows up on page 3 as the 11th entry. I didn't browse to page 3.

If you google Zak Smith you will get the same results as I did I believe.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on August 27, 2022, 10:53:37 PM
I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.
You say this forum ought to be something other than what it is and that people here ought to be responsiblefor what they post. Why do you believe it ought to be that way?

If people post things that aren't true and enough people spread it around, it gets really hard to separate the misinformation from the truth. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 11:03:27 PM
I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.
My phone showed 5 entries per page, and that shows up on page 3 as the 11th entry. I didn't browse to page 3.

If you google Zak Smith you will get the same results as I did I believe.
I Googled Zak S.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 11:05:57 PM
I think you're expecting overly formalized communication on what is a very informal channel.

I don't expect shit off this list. I expect you to not play fair as I expect the other trolls on the site to not play fair.

Formality is less important than the fairness that the form enables.

If there's another way to be fair--to make sure that people are held accountable for their claims and don't do unnecessary harm in pursuing the truth, I am open to hearing your suggestions.

Also, if there's some genuine reason any of this is bad (beyond "Me like troll. Troll funny. Funny more important than true lol") nobody's been able to articulate it.

Basically the obvious problem is the is/ought fallacy. People ought to be responsible for what they say. The social norm here is they are not. Nobody has ever said why that's good, only that the anonymity of the internet makes it common and easy.
You say this forum ought to be something other than what it is and that people here ought to be responsiblefor what they post. Why do you believe it ought to be that way?

If people post things that aren't true and enough people spread it around, it gets really hard to separate the misinformation from the truth.
The battle for truth is long lost here. In this case you're talking about truth related to specifics about one person, but this is a site where wild-ass conspiracy theories are gleefully embraced, so don't be surprised if the little lies live here too.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on August 27, 2022, 11:07:46 PM
I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.
My phone showed 5 entries per page, and that shows up on page 3 as the 11th entry. I didn't browse to page 3.

If you google Zak Smith you will get the same results as I did I believe.
I Googled Zak S.

Yeah I apologize, I should have been more specific when I said him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 27, 2022, 11:29:39 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 27, 2022, 11:31:51 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

You're lying again.

Again, this is a claim that Ettin made before he got sued. Ettin never bothered to actually check the stuff he said about sockpuppets.

But, as HappyDaze pointed out above, being responsible for the things you say isn't normal on this this site, so you said it anyway.

Here's proof you're dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 12:33:27 AM
Maybe Ettin didn't, but I do. Here's a pic from the time you fucked up and Zakposted using your SApplecline sock account on reddit:
(https://img.fae.ro/98b802.jpeg)


What's really funny is this happened AFTER someone alse accused you of using the SApplecline account, and you denied it. Only to then go and accidentally post using that account. Oopsie!

(https://img.fae.ro/bbc72d.jpeg)

...but sure, Zak, you never use zakpuppet, er, SOCKpuppet accounts.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 12:36:49 AM

...but sure, Zak, you never use zakpuppet, er, SOCKpuppet accounts.

Yeah that's not what that picture shows.

That's also addressed in the video.

And you are actually doing the same thing: thinking or pretending to think anyone who disagrees with you about me is me.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 12:38:15 AM

...but sure, Zak, you never use zakpuppet, er, SOCKpuppet accounts.

Yeah that's not what that picture shows.

That's also addressed in the video.

Ceci n’est pas une pipe, eh, Zak?

And not really, because I said "I wonder", and "Maybe not." I haven't assumed that that poster is you, but I do wonder.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 12:42:15 AM


Ceci n’est pas une pipe, eh, Zak?

Again, you're doing that thing where you're point's addressed, then because you don't want to be held accountable for what you said, not responding to the point.

You're provably dishonest, it doesn't require any elaborate narrative or gloss or relying on a debunked sued guy to set up or frame it:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 12:45:48 AM


Ceci n’est pas une pipe, eh, Zak?

Again, you're doing that thing where you're point's addressed, then because you don't want to be held accountable for what you said, not responding to the point.

You're provably dishonest, it doesn't require any elaborate narrative or gloss or relying on a debunked sued guy to set up or frame it:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Honestly, the only thing I've ever read by Ettin is his forced apology to you. I know you NEED this info to be from Ettin for your narrative, sorry to disappoint.

Mods plz change Zak's handle to SApplecline, for old times' sake, TIA.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 12:52:30 AM

Honestly, the only thing I've ever read by Ettin is his forced apology to you. I know you NEED this info to be from Ettin for your narrative, sorry to disappoint.


It doesn't really matter what you read or think you read:

Ettin made the claims you are making. Then he failed in court because his claims weren't true.

This whole necro of this thread started with a guy posting a video which addresses pretty much all the claims you've made. You're just dodging and moving to the next thing.

You already said you have no proof of the things you say and are leaning on second-hand accounts. Then when the problem with that was pointed out you dodged.

You've made lots of easily disproved claims, here an obvious example:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

If you were telling the truth, you'd be able to back up what you say. You can't and just dodge to the next thing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 12:54:32 AM
(https://img.fae.ro/ebe50a.jpeg)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 12:57:12 AM
Oh, I have backed up my statements, Zak. And I never said what you just claimed I said.

Like I told you previously, repeating something doesn't make it true.

And neither does spamming the one thing you inexplicably think makes you immune to everything over and over and over...

Keep on glitching bro.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on August 28, 2022, 01:13:45 AM
I think saying I insult you habitually is misleading.  I also think that it is demonstrably true that you started name-calling before I did (years ago) but you think that anyone expressing a preference for other forms of play is insulting you. 

So I say that I am deliberately insulting you, not out of habit, but specifically because I think it is warranted.  Telling you that you are an asshole (and telling people why you're an asshole) is pro-social.  And unlike you, I believe people are capable of making up their own minds based on evidence, so I'm satisfied that conversation serves as the warning about your toxicity that I hoped it would. 

Keeping you focused on 'setting the record straight' here also hopefully keeps you from spreading your toxicity more widely.  This is your thread and everyone here knows what they're getting themselves into.

Remind me - are you still contending that people here are calling you an asshole unfairly?  Or are you admitting that you are an asshole but trying to claim that so is everyone else?

Objection!

I'm not an asshole, nor a pussy, I'm a dick!

Sustained.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 28, 2022, 12:36:31 PM
I missed four pages, but 'missed' is a strong word. I know that most people aren't going to be willing to read 47+ pages to be sure that the conversation is about what they think it is, so Zak has a strong incentive to keep posting until the absolute amount of assholery becomes sufficiently massive that it collapses into a singularity from which there is no escaping. 

So I'll offer my summary of the last four pages. 

Zak continues to be an asshole.  He specifically engages in the behaviors that people say makes him an asshole.  This includes restating someone's position inaccurately and pretending that the ONLY POSSIBLE inference is his own. He also continues to post the same thing over and over claiming it says something that other people don't agree it means.  He again has tried to define the terms of the debate where several people have been told that EVEN POSTING ON THIS FORUM makes them a troll unless they stand up for Zak and try to argue against points that other people made (because you have a moral imperative to address something that someone else says that makes Zak look bad apparently). 

And apparently Zak doesn't make much money anymore because nobody wants to work with him.  He apparently thinks that is because people have lied about him on the internet, and nobody that dislikes him has come to that decision based solely on their own interaction with Zak. 

Well, Zak, I'm a counterpoint.  I think you're an asshole because of the things you do and say.  I've documented it extensively in this thread.  I've explained my reasons, I've quoted you exhibiting specific behaviors and the closest you've come to 'addressing' them is to say that I'm a troll so they don't deserve any response. 

But like Tubesock Army pointed out 4 pages ago, I don't need to tell people that if they had a functioning brain they could ONLY POSSIBLY AGREE WITH ME.  I actually believe people have functioning brains so they're able to look at your behavior in this thread - you know 'setting the record straight' and come to a reasonable position based on what they think it takes to be an asshole.  So here's your shovel.  I know you can't resist and you're going to keep digging.  And we go far enough, eventually this thread will be the #1 result for 'Zak S., asshole'. 

It hasn't even made it to the first page of results, yet...   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 01:45:20 PM
He specifically engages in the behaviors that people say makes him an asshole.

Indeed... It's truly quite fascinating, I nearly have to read this thread from behind the couch.

Now if you look at Venger and the way he deals with people it's the complete opposite (unless someone is a real asshole). So Venger will always have a loyal base of fans because he's a nice guy and would certainly be open to criticism and would even try and respond without being abrasive. And I've seen him do it on YT and other forums even when some folks have been very nasty indeed.

I've certainly defended Venger on multiple occasions despite me being an old lefty and our political views not being aligned at all (not that he needs my help, btw). I can only say that every time we've spoken he's been nothing but a gent. So I like the guy.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).





 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 02:38:46 PM

So I'll offer my summary of the last four pages. 


Your summaries of peoples' posts are objectively, provably not reliable:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 02:56:48 PM
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 02:59:56 PM
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

Unfortunately for Zak, he's a douche.

Your summaries of peoples' posts are objectively, provably not reliable:

As you have repeatedly proven, neither are yours.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 03:02:23 PM

Your summaries of peoples' posts are objectively, provably not reliable:

As you have repeatedly proven, neither are yours.

You don't have to rely on my summary, here's proof you're dishonest:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 28, 2022, 05:40:47 PM
You know that's your summary of what you claim is people being dishonest? 

You know, the one that people have specifically mentioned doesn't seem to say what you think it does? 

You know, the one where someone said 'Mike didn't recommend people sign papers' and you said 'prove he said that', and you've tried to use that as a gotcha because 'I never said he told people NOT to sign the papers'.  Even though the only reason it would have made sense for people to mention it is that you implied (in your brain-damaged and not as easily parsed way that you think can only be interpreted in a single way) was wrong. 

Of course, that's just an example of you completely moving the goal-posts so apparently we were never even discussing what we thought we were discussing. 

Which is why I've been insistent that we don't move from the one point that I'm very confident in and that I believe should be the crux of the conversation: Zak, you're an asshole. 

It's fun to keep pointing that out in new and interesting ways, using new examples and quotes of you engaging in exactly the type of behavior that people generally agree marks an asshole.  But the reason it is so ENJOYABLE is because you are so oblivious to how many own-goals you've scored.  I'm pretty sure Tubesock Army referred to you as Pavlov's Fucking Dog, and he's so right - you pathologically can't change your behaviors so again and again and again we just set you up and let you dunk on yourself.  And I keep thinking surely you've got to realize what you're doing and at least stop scoring points for us, and you don't.  It is so crazy and ridiculous - it's like a butter sculpture - there are far more serious artforms out there, but it's still impressive that someone puts this much effort into something so meaningless. 

Beautiful! 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 05:43:55 PM
...stop scoring points for us,
If you think there's "points" to be "scored" that pretty much proves you are a troll and you're not reliable.

Misinformation has to be fact-checked.  It's a moral imperative, not a game or contest. You can't "win" doing volunteer work at the community center.

You know that's your summary of what you claim is people being dishonest? 


Anyone reading this can just check, here it is:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on August 28, 2022, 05:56:42 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

Not a sock puppet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:04:48 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

Not a sock puppet.
Of course, that's what I would expect a sock puppet to say...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on August 28, 2022, 06:13:32 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

Not a sock puppet.
Of course, that's what I would expect a sock puppet to say...

I think a sock puppet would come up with something better to say personally...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 28, 2022, 06:21:13 PM
I googled him as well and the second entry was https://www.fredericksfreisergallery.com/artists/zak-smith.  Looked pretty positive to me.  So saying that none of it paints him in a positive light doesn't seen right.
That's hideous.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:38:49 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

Not a sock puppet.
Of course, that's what I would expect a sock puppet to say...

I think a sock puppet would come up with something better to say personally...
I'll yield to your more intimate experiences with the subject matter.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 06:40:50 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

Not a sock puppet.
Of course, that's what I would expect a sock puppet to say...

I think a sock puppet would come up with something better to say personally...
I'll yield to your more intimate experiences with the subject matter.
Claiming their experiences are "more intimate" is a claim that this person is a sock puppet.

Are you willing to stand by that claim and hold yourself accountable if it's disproved?

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 06:50:24 PM
Hey, gang, did you know Zak's Wikipedia page was at one time locked by admins due to... wait for it... "sockpuppeting"
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 06:52:43 PM
Hey, gang, did you know Zak's Wikipedia page was locked by admins due to... wait for it... "sockpuppeting"

Are you willing to stand by the claim I use sock puppets and be held accountable if it turns out not to be true?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 06:53:40 PM
In case anyone's wondering if Tubesock's reliable:

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:53:59 PM
I can't help but wonder if this mysterious white knighting noob is a Zak sockpuppet.

Maybe not, but Zak does have a history of both defending and attacking himself with sock accounts.

Not a sock puppet.
Of course, that's what I would expect a sock puppet to say...

I think a sock puppet would come up with something better to say personally...
I'll yield to your more intimate experiences with the subject matter.
Claiming their experiences are "more intimate" is a claim that this person is a sock puppet.

Are you willing to stand by that claim and hold yourself accountable if it's disproved?
You're failing at basic communication. What both of us are doing is just exchanging some trash talk. You should understand that your "rules of engagement" cannot be enforced, so stop being an asshole...or don't.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 06:57:43 PM
What both of us are doing is just exchanging some trash talk.

It would only be "just" trash talk if nobody believed it.

But they do believe it, so that doesn't make any sense to say.

Since people believe it, anyone reading has an obligation (if they can) to point out it's not true.

Quote
You should understand that your "rules of engagement" cannot be enforced...

I never said they could be "enforced" in fact I've repeatedly said that.

I am simply pointing out, for the benefit of any conscientious, intelligent people who might be reading this that you guys should not be believed.

In this case: because you make serious allegations and can't stand behind them.

(And, basically, you're admitting you know it wasn't true and you're a troll.)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:00:14 PM
What both of us are doing is just exchanging some trash talk.

It would only be "just" trash talk if nobody believed it.

But they do believe it, so that doesn't make any sense to say.

Since people believe it, anyone reading has an obligation (if they can) to point out it's not true.

Quote
You should understand that your "rules of engagement" cannot be enforced...

I never said they could be "enforced" in fact I've repeatedly said that.

I am simply pointing out, for the benefit of any conscientious, intelligent people who might be reading this that you guys should not be believed.

In this case: because you make serious allegations and can't stand behind them.

(And, basically, you're admitting you know it wasn't true and you're a troll.)
Who is this "they" that you claim believes it? Where is your proof?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:02:42 PM
What both of us are doing is just exchanging some trash talk.

It would only be "just" trash talk if nobody believed it.

But they do believe it, so that doesn't make any sense to say.

Since people believe it, anyone reading has an obligation (if they can) to point out it's not true.

Quote
You should understand that your "rules of engagement" cannot be enforced...

I never said they could be "enforced" in fact I've repeatedly said that.

I am simply pointing out, for the benefit of any conscientious, intelligent people who might be reading this that you guys should not be believed.

In this case: because you make serious allegations and can't stand behind them.

(And, basically, you're admitting you know it wasn't true and you're a troll.)
BTW, Zak, you're accusing me of making accusations. By your own rules, you have to prove that's what I did. But all you can do is assume. But you'll state your assumption as a fact...which means you're lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:07:29 PM

Who is this "they" that you claim believes it? Where is your proof?

No, again, I said I'd agree to follow good faith rules (like answering questions and giving proof) if you do.

You were given that choice.

These are rules that anyone who was an honest person, occasional logistics aside, would not have much problem following:

1. Don't post things you don't believe to be true.
2. When you make a mistake or present misinformation, apologize and go back and change the original post (and any other thing you have control over) to reflect the fact you now accept it's not true. Don't undermine the fix/apology later and don't ever repeat the misinformation.
3. Hold everyone to the same standards, so: if a person you disagree with earns a critique from you, make the same critique of those agreeing with you if they've done the same thing--in the same venue, and also anyone you're neutral, undecided, etc about.
4. Answer questions when asked. If there's some desperate reason you can't answer, say what that is. If you have to leave the conversation, answer the question next time you are able.
5. Don't commit logical fallacies (including the burden of proof fallacy).
6. Apologize if you accidentally or impulsively break a rule and take all steps to fix any damage.
7. In general, interact as if getting to the truth as efficiently as possible is more important than being entertained by posting on an RPG website
8. No first strike personal attacks.

EDIT:
(9. And, as above, respond to points made in response to you, treat them as questions about the why you think your claim is valid considering the  point presented.)

...you refused.

If you're changing your mind and now saying "Ok, I agree to have this conversation on equal, good faith terms and play fair" then I'll post proof acquired over the years, that people believe that claim. But if you're going to not acknowledge it and just use it to troll, then it's not worth it.

So:

Do you agree to play fair?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:10:34 PM
BTW, Zak, you're accusing me of making accusations. By your own rules, you have to prove that's what I did.

My claim is that you saying whatstheir face is "more intimate" with sockpuppeting than you (after another troll accused them of being my sockpuppet) constitutes an accusation, in context, that that person is my sockpuppet.

If you claim it isn't now, and that you accept it wasn't rational or fair to claim they were my sockpuppet, I'll do what any good person would do in this case: I will apologize for jumping to that conclusion--and I'll modify my previous post.

So, if you want to say that: I'm listening.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:15:17 PM
BTW, Zak, you're accusing me of making accusations. By your own rules, you have to prove that's what I did.

My claim is that you saying whatstheir face is "more intimate" with sockpuppeting than you (after another troll accused them of being my sockpuppet) constitutes an accusation, in context, that that person is my sockpuppet.

If you claim it isn't now, and that you accept it wasn't rational or fair to claim they were my sockpuppet, I'll do what any good person would do in this case: I will apologize for jumping to that conclusion--and I'll modify my previous post.

So, if you want to say that: I'm listening.
Already covered.

You're still lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:16:25 PM

Already covered.


Already covered what?

Are you trying to say you know the claim that I had a sockpuppet isn't true?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:19:01 PM

Already covered.


Already covered what?

Are you trying to say you know the claim that I had a sockpuppet isn't true?
I already covered that.

Why are you still lying?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:20:05 PM

I already covered that.


I don't know what that means in this context.

Oh well.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:21:22 PM

I already covered that.


I don't know what that means in this context.

Oh well.
You're obviously lying again, when I clearly covered this. So, why are you still lying?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:22:42 PM

You're obviously lying again, when I clearly covered this. So, why are you still lying?

I don't know what you're referring to.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:31:50 PM

You're obviously lying again, when I clearly covered this. So, why are you still lying?

I don't know what you're referring to.
Caught in a lie and still won't admit to it. It makes me start to think you've been lying about everything else I've read on you too.

Is this your first time lying, or is this your norm?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:32:33 PM

Caught in a lie and still won't admit to it.

I don't know which thing I said you think is a lie.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:33:03 PM
In case anyone missed this:

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:34:55 PM

Caught in a lie and still won't admit to it.

I don't know which thing I said you think is a lie.
I already covered it upthread. Your continued denials of understanding this are continued lies.

Just. Stop. Lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 07:36:26 PM
In case anyone missed this:

Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Don't change the subject, Zak. That's just an attempt to distract from your lies.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:38:15 PM

I already covered it upthread. Your continued denials of understanding this are continued lies.



I don't know which thing you're referring to, you've made several assertions and I responded.

The good faith resolution to this would be to post the sentence I said that you think contains a lie.

Assuming that when I say I don't know I am secretly lying is assuming bad faith (ie without having proven it) and assuming bad faith is a bad faith act.

But anyone who understands the concept knew that, since you already explicitly refused to follow good faith rules-- twice.

You don't have to follow them, but it's important for anyone reading to know you can't be trusted.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 07:50:33 PM
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."

I see your point...

However, I don't think you will achieve your goal (to the extent you wish anyway) mainly because of the way you 'answer' people in either a passive-aggressive or hostile tone. Will it endear you to lurkers and is it just fanning the flames without ever reaching a conclusion?

In my opinion, I don't think it looks good for the optics. So I think Venger's approach is far better when it comes to dealing with people (YMMV).
I'd definitely like to have a beer with Venger and chew the fat, despite being polar opposites in terms of political viewpoints.

In fact, there are a couple of good dudes here that I'd like to hang out and game with despite them being on a different political spectrum.









Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 07:53:26 PM
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

Unfortunately for Zak, he's a douche.

Your summaries of peoples' posts are objectively, provably not reliable:


He's his own worst enemy from what I can see.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 07:53:33 PM
However, I don't think you will achieve your goal (to the extent you wish anyway) mainly because of the way you 'answer' people in either a passive-aggressive or hostile tone.

There are people who--when faced with a fairly serious moral issue--are more persuaded by tone and "optics" than facts. A lot of people.

Experience has taught me those people are creepy and unreliable and not very bright and I do not want them on my side or near anyone close to me or to enable them to do any more harm than they already do by stumbling around spreading any piece of misinformation charismatic enough to ring their bell and voting for fascists.

----

It also pretty weird to complain someone is being manipulative and then complain that they aren't manipulating you enough. If you think about it. But I am pretty sure there is no force on earth that could force most of y'all to think about it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 08:01:53 PM
those people are creepy and unreliable and not very bright and I do not want them on my side or near anyone close to me.

Interesting... Again, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors with that one either.

Also, most people are wired that way, due to evolution, our brains naturally take shortcuts for a reason. It's rarer that people feel the need or even the interest to dig deeper - of course, they should.

That's why there are so many anti-vaxers out there because people bought into the first bit of info they heard without checking its validity. Thing is... Some are very intelligent they are just not very good at critical thinking (or are just lazy).







 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 08:05:42 PM
Some are very intelligent they are just not very good at critical thinking (or are just lazy).

I don't think it will help to argue over the definition of intelligent, here so I will say:

I don't want people who are "just not very good at critical thinking (or are just lazy)" and yet still feel a need to take action on a morally meaningful issue anywhere near my life and I don't want to enable them.

If failure to manipulate people who are not very good at critical thinking or failure to manipulate people who are lazy is why I die, then at least I die with clean hands and not playing the game the people who did this play.

It might help people in the future, in might not, but at least I won't have to watch it happen anymore.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 28, 2022, 08:13:49 PM
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."
False.  Liar liar pants on fire.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/flies.png)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 08:14:43 PM
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."
False.  Liar liar pants on fire.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/flies.png)

Damn!  ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 08:28:01 PM
It might help people in the future, in might not, but at least I won't have to watch it happen anymore.

I get that... And it sheds some light on why you do what you do (and the way you do it). If I were in your situation, I would certainly take legal action should that person affect my income and put out some rather unsavory allegations. It's the only logical step.

I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or piss-takers on forums. I always think it's better to go in slightly cooler and then ramp it up to 'hot' - Basically matching them only when they escalate the argument. That said it doesn't always go as planned. And some people are not worth speaking to at all...

I still think if you set out a very vigorously strict set of criteria (the bullet list) on how to communicate on a forum with you (especially like this) you're just poking the bull. Again YMMV.










Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 08:32:37 PM
I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or pisstakers on forums. I always think it's better to go in slightly cooler and then ramp it up to 'hot' - Basically matching them only when they escalate the argument. That said it doesn't always as planned. And some people are not worth speaking to at all...

Long term, the way most ("reasonable") people talk on the RPG internet hasn't worked. Even when it sounds reasonable. Large-scale problems that trolls created haven't gotten better, problems haven't gotten solved. Many things got worse.

The way I handled things made some things better that I was concerned about in the neighborhood I was in for a few years--at least until my ex lost her grip on reality.

Whether it made them better or not, you still have to do the right thing even when it's unpopular.

If pointing out the bull is full of bullshit is poking the bull then I don't have an option where the bull doesn't get poked.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 28, 2022, 08:39:08 PM
No points?  The point of talking is to make a point.  Now that doesn't mean that we have to keep SCORE.  But that's analogies - sometimes they work to a point and sometimes you have to belabor them far more than makes sense. 

So the point I came here to make; the point I BELIEVE I have made with your assistance OVER AND OVER again is that you're an asshole. 

You spamming a series of quotes without attribution and without clarity of what you THINK you're saying isn't winning over any 'neutral observers'.  Your ongoing melt-down and inability to disengage isn't showing you to be a 'nice chill guy who can relax'. 

(https://scienceblogs.com/files/tfk/files/2012/07/lucyfootball.png)


Keep trying Charlie Brown!  You're bound to show us all if you take one more run at the football. :) 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 08:49:43 PM
I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or piss-takers on forums.

Here's a true story:

Once upon a time there was a major RPG blogger. Not me. He was a harmless kitty cat to everyone basically.

He ran a kickstarter, made more money than anyone at that time thought was possible, then his personal life went haywire and he couldn't finish. His claim (I don't know if it's true but what I've seen since suggests it is) that his business partner convinced him to just deliver late instead of give the money back.

People trolled the living shit out of him--and he was an emotionally fragile person. It's also fair to say that what they said probably affected his future business prospects in the industry quite a lot. Part of it was his fault (he was fragile) but a lot of it was theirs.

The guy was fucked. He had no problem admitting how unstable he was and how fucked all this was for him.

Fast forward to years later:

A dude starts a thread about how much he misses said RPG blogger. Others agree.

It also emerges that the same dude was one of the people who trolled said RPG blogger.

They even go beyond that and admit they were people who themselves spread specific misinformation about them.

The Dude: "He deserved it. He thinks his kind of game is better than everyone else's"

Zak: "Did he ever say that?"

Dude: "Nah but you could just tell"

Zak: "How?"

Dude: "His tone."

Literally this dude was part of a hate campaign that drove someone to the edge of suicide on vibes and spread bullshit about them that people all over RPG land believe to this day. And also didn't seem to have even the slightest idea that these consequences:

-Were real
or
-Were their fault.

Since the court process began I've seen lots of conversations with trolls where basically the same thing happens: to them, they're just being a merry prankster on the internet (and often, they'll admit, explicitly because their real life sucks). They don't want to think about the victim --until they are one (that happens a surprising number of times, the hatemobber gets recognized for something then gets hatemobbed and is like "Oh wait, unfair, uncool")

It's like the people with the pitchforks being mad that Frankenstein isn't around anymore.

I'm not saying that anyone in the hatemob will miss me specifically, but I am saying that the normal way of doing things and the standard way of dealing with harassers online doesn't work. It enables them and distances them from the damage they do and pretty much none of them are thoughtful enough to see it.

They just wanna post the next snarky thing-- and making them like you doesn't stop them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 08:52:47 PM
No points?  The point of talking is to make a point.  Now that doesn't mean that we have to keep SCORE.  But that's analogies - sometimes they work to a point and sometimes you have to belabor them far more than makes sense. 

So the point I came here to make; the point I BELIEVE I have made with your assistance OVER AND OVER again is that you're an asshole. 

You spamming a series of quotes without attribution and without clarity of what you THINK you're saying isn't winning over any 'neutral observers'.  Your ongoing melt-down and inability to disengage isn't showing you to be a 'nice chill guy who can relax'. 

My goal is not to prove I am this or that kind of guy, it's to allow people the easiest access possible to the fact you're dishonest and do not take responsibility for the claims you make online. Here is proof. If you would, you'd simply admit that your claim below is inaccurate and apologize:


Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 08:58:22 PM
I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or pisstakers on forums. I always think it's better to go in slightly cooler and then ramp it up to 'hot' - Basically matching them only when they escalate the argument. That said it doesn't always as planned. And some people are not worth speaking to at all...

Long term, the way most ("reasonable") people talk on the RPG internet hasn't worked. Even when it sounds reasonable. Large-scale problems that trolls created haven't gotten better, problems haven't gotten solved. Many things got worse.

The way I handled things made some things better that I was concerned about in the neighborhood I was in for a few years--at least until my ex lost her grip on reality.

Whether it made them better or not, you still have to do the right thing even when it's unpopular.

If pointing out the bull is full of bullshit is poking the bull then I don't have an option where the bull doesn't get poked.

That's the main thing... If you can get things 'settled' that you were most concerned about. Makes perfect sense...

Forums are an odd animal, however. Everyone talks and takes s bit of shit especially here. I'd call that 'banter'... But I suppose it depends on what's being said so I'm keeping that a bit broad.

Places like RPG.net to me seem like the 'wild west' to me. Okay, here me out... Because there you can say some pretty much any nefarious shit without having to back it up. Then, all the other muppets go along with it - No fact checking whatsoever! It's a place deeply ruled by their own internal prejudices. It's also no place for cynics like me... The same shit goes on with FB groups (real names or not!).

But the bullet point list for communication you set out or wished for, just can't work with such a medium, IMO. It will probably only serve as fuel to the fire (as I stated earlier) but it might also put people off trying to communicate with you. Sure, I get that you don't want to talk to certain people (probably myself included). But some others might be a bit put off, IMO. Because at the same time it doesn't make you seem very approachable. Does that make sense?














Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 08:59:33 PM
I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or piss-takers on forums.

Here's a true story:

Once upon a time there was a major RPG blogger. Not me. He was a harmless kitty cat to everyone basically.

He ran a kickstarter, made more money than anyone at that time thought was possible, then his personal life went haywire and he couldn't finish. His claim (I don't know if it's true but what I've seen since suggests it is) that his business partner convinced him to just deliver late instead of give the money back.

People trolled the living shit out of him--and he was an emotionally fragile person. It's also fair to say that what they said probably affected his future business prospects in the industry quite a lot. Part of it was his fault (he was fragile) but a lot of it was theirs.

The guy was fucked. He had no problem admitting how unstable he was and how fucked all this was for him.

Fast forward to years later:

A dude starts a thread about how much he misses said RPG blogger. Others agree.

It also emerges that the same dude was one of the people who trolled said RPG blogger.

They even go beyond that and admit they were people who themselves spread specific misinformation about them.

The Dude: "He deserved it. He thinks his kind of game is better than everyone else's"

Zak: "Did he ever say that?"

Dude: "Nah but you could just tell"

Zak: "How?"

Dude: "His tone."

Literally this dude was part of a hate campaign that drove someone to the edge of suicide on vibes and spread bullshit about them that people all over RPG land believe to this day. And also didn't seem to have even the slightest idea that these consequences:

-Were real
or
-Were their fault.

Since the court process began I've seen lots of conversations with trolls where basically the same thing happens: to them, they're just being a merry prankster on the internet (and often, they'll admit, explicitly because their real life sucks). They don't want to think about the victim --until they are one (that happens a surprising number of times, the hatemobber gets recognized for something then gets hatemobbed and is like "Oh wait, unfair, uncool")

It's like the people with the pitchforks being mad that Frankenstein isn't around anymore.

I'm not saying that anyone in the hatemob will miss me specifically, but I am saying that the normal way of doing things and the standard way of dealing with harassers online doesn't work. It enables them and distances them from the damage they do and pretty much none of them are thoughtful enough to see it.

They just wanna post the next snarky thing-- and making them like you doesn't stop them.

I'm reading this... Will reply.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 09:07:47 PM
Forums are an odd animal, however. Everyone talks and takes s bit of shit especially here. I'd call that 'banter'...

Sure but it's been repeatedly proven that the  kind of "banter" here (also: "venting" and "talking shit" and "joking" and "hyperbole") has consistently tipped over into false claims people actually believe and act on. Consistently, for years. And its made the RPG community a place where conversations about anything important are consistently unproductive and circular. And, it's provable that you can banter and vent and joke to the degree people need to do that while still drawing the line at defamation or talking shit you can't back up. People do it in the real world all day long.

It's just a little more work online and people don't wanna. They privilege their right to be entertained over innocent randos right to not have their lives destroyed.

Quote
Because there you can say some pretty much any nefarious shit without having to back it up.

I don't see the difference.
Quote

But the bullet point list for communication you set out or wished for, just can't work with such a medium, IMO.

It works perfectly well in every forum I've ever seen it used in.

It also works fine at most dinner tables and real life social spaces--where if you lie about someone at the table everyone looks at you and asks for proof.

Quote
but it might also put people off trying to communicate with you. Sure, I get that you don't want to talk to certain people (probably myself included). But some others might be a bit put off, IMO. Because at the same time it doesn't make you seem very approachable. Does that make sense?

No it makes no sense because

People put off by the idea of taking responsibility for wild accusations they make are not people I want on my side.

You keep trying to say "trolls won't like you if you say trolling is bad". Duh.

Also, this never comes up for me except on the RPG internet. People go to bars, go to college, go to restaurants, have parties and manage to not lie about people, unchecked, right to their face all the time.

The only reason to put up with that is if you want to manipulate shitty people into liking you and the shitty people are used to it and have learned to like it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 09:31:31 PM

I already covered it upthread. Your continued denials of understanding this are continued lies.



I don't know which thing you're referring to, you've made several assertions and I responded.

The good faith resolution to this would be to post the sentence I said that you think contains a lie.

Assuming that when I say I don't know I am secretly lying is assuming bad faith (ie without having proven it) and assuming bad faith is a bad faith act.

But anyone who understands the concept knew that, since you already explicitly refused to follow good faith rules-- twice.

You don't have to follow them, but it's important for anyone reading to know you can't be trusted.
I go off to watch a TV show and...

You're still lying.

Your good faith bullshit is just that since you dint follow it yourself.

Your full of lies today...and quite likely this is your norm.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 28, 2022, 09:36:42 PM
Is he still sperging out "post 518" over and over again?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 28, 2022, 10:07:18 PM
Forums are an odd animal, however. Everyone talks and takes s bit of shit especially here. I'd call that 'banter'...

Sure but it's been repeatedly proven that the  kind of "banter" here (also: "venting" and "talking shit" and "joking" and "hyperbole") has consistently tipped over into false claims people actually believe and act on. Consistently, for years. And its made the RPG community a place where conversations about anything important are consistently unproductive and circular. And, it's provable that you can banter and vent and joke to the degree people need to do that while still drawing the line at defamation or talking shit you can't back up. People do it in the real world all day long.

It's just a little more work online and people don't wanna. They privilege their right to be entertained over innocent randos right to not have their lives destroyed.

Quote
Because there you can say some pretty much any nefarious shit without having to back it up.

I don't see the difference.
Quote

But the bullet point list for communication you set out or wished for, just can't work with such a medium, IMO.

It works perfectly well in every forum I've ever seen it used in.

It also works fine at most dinner tables and real life social spaces--where if you lie about someone at the table everyone looks at you and asks for proof.

Quote
but it might also put people off trying to communicate with you. Sure, I get that you don't want to talk to certain people (probably myself included). But some others might be a bit put off, IMO. Because at the same time it doesn't make you seem very approachable. Does that make sense?

No it makes no sense because

People put off by the idea of taking responsibility for wild accusations they make are not people I want on my side.

You keep trying to say "trolls won't like you if you say trolling is bad". Duh.

Also, this never comes up for me except on the RPG internet. People go to bars, go to college, go to restaurants, have parties and manage to not lie about people, unchecked, right to their face all the time.

The only reason to put up with that is if you want to manipulate shitty people into liking you and the shitty people are used to it and have learned to like it.


I had a big lengthy reply for the other post but you've posted this. So firstly re. your previous post. Yes, I agree... I see what you're saying... Well, purely from an ethical point of view. No one should tell outright lies about someone. If someone is deliberately spreading false information about people, that could potentially do 'real' harm then that's a fucking big problem (or using blatant and constant cyberbullying/Harassment/threatening).

1) Re. Banter... Well, it depends. I think you're taking 'banter' too seriously. Now, if that said 'banter' starts to go into the realms of severe bullying, spreading misinformation, etc. Then it's no longer just banter it's escalated to something else.

2) Again, that would depend on what information is being passed along. In your situation, you don't even have a voice on RPG.net or on some of those FB groups. Here at least, you have the ability to defend yourself. Whether you are doing it successfully or not will be judged by the readers.

3) I disagree with the particular formality you used for the bullet points (in the way you did). I think they are unworkable in their current state in regard to this forum. I don't think they will help you trying to have a decent convo with someone. YMMV.

4) If only that were true. Most people just talk out of their arse in person and online. Most of the time I don't bother with proof. Unless they are making a very specific claim that actually could have an effect. Vax vs Anti-vax, etc.

5) I think there has been a miscommunication here. I didn't say "trolls won't like you". That would be irrelevant, anyway, surely? Who cares?

What I was saying specifically is that if you act in a hostile manner (or a perceived one by the trolls) you just end up 'provoking' the trolls. And the people I'm talking about being "put off" by your passive-aggressive tone may not encompass everyone which you wish to alienate. Of course, that's not really quantifiable as it's speculation one way or the other. We can't really say for sure what others are thinking.

6) Again, it's not necessary to be liked per se or sucking up to anyone. If someone is perceived as being unlikable then it will always be more of an uphill battle. This is why I'd personally go the Venger route. But that's just me.







Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 10:09:08 PM
Is he still sperging out "post 518" over and over again?

Yep.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 10:10:10 PM
Hey, Zak, you need to offers some proof of these allegations against your fellow porn actor James Deen:
https://medium.com/@zaksmith_/james-deen-cookie-monster-c05490730609
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:11:26 PM
Hey, Zak, you need to offers some proof of these allegations against your fellow porn actor James Deen:
https://medium.com/@zaksmith_/james-deen-cookie-monster-c05490730609

I am not alleging he did something that was recorded on the internet.

He physically attacked me (irl, not on the internet) and--before I published the article--I did my research, discovered specific corroborating evidence and went through a fact-checker at a major national publication.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:14:40 PM
[
Your good faith bullshit is just that since you dint follow it yourself.

Your full of lies today...and quite likely this is your norm.

Incorrect.

So far as I know we didn't interact at all, then you spread misinformation here:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/540/

Doing what I'm morally obliged to do, I fact-checked you on that page.

You didn't apologize or take effective steps to undo the harm you did--at that point my obligation to play fair with you ended.

Even then you made requests for information and twice I offered you an agreement that I'd play fair with you if you did the same. You refused twice.

I did exactly what I tell other people they should do.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 28, 2022, 10:17:15 PM
Hey, Zak, you need to offers some proof of these allegations against your fellow porn actor James Deen:
https://medium.com/@zaksmith_/james-deen-cookie-monster-c05490730609

I am not alleging he did something that was recorded on the internet.

That's a fine double standard you have there asshole.

People accused you of stuff and you demand anyone saying you were to provide proof, yet you engage in spreading accusations without evidence.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:18:40 PM
Hey, Zak, you need to offers some proof of these allegations against your fellow porn actor James Deen:
https://medium.com/@zaksmith_/james-deen-cookie-monster-c05490730609

I am not alleging he did something that was recorded on the internet.

That's a fine double standard you have there asshole.

People accused you of stuff and you demand anyone saying you were to provide proof, yet you engage in spreading accusations without evidence.

That's not a double standard:

People accusing me went through none of the steps I took before accusing Deen.

I am not saying "dont' accuse" I am saying "don't accuse without doing the work".

For just one example: I am available to answer any questions  I can answer regarding the accusations and I am willing to testify to my claims in court.

In addition, if called upon to testify if Deen ever did sue I am happy to--under penalty of perjury--say that if he manages to subpoena the casino's security tape for that evening it will corroborate my story.

That is to say: I am willing to be responsible for my statements and suffer real material consequences if they are not true.

You're not.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 10:31:16 PM
Hey, Zak, you need to offers some proof of these allegations against your fellow porn actor James Deen:
https://medium.com/@zaksmith_/james-deen-cookie-monster-c05490730609

I am not alleging he did something that was recorded on the internet.

He physically attacked me (irl, not on the internet) and--before I published the article--I did my research, discovered specific corroborating evidence and went through a fact-checker at a major national publication.

A publication who ultimately decided not to run the story, Meaning they wouldn't go to press with whatever you provided.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:33:31 PM
Hey, Zak, you need to offers some proof of these allegations against your fellow porn actor James Deen:
https://medium.com/@zaksmith_/james-deen-cookie-monster-c05490730609

I am not alleging he did something that was recorded on the internet.

He physically attacked me (irl, not on the internet) and--before I published the article--I did my research, discovered specific corroborating evidence and went through a fact-checker at a major national publication.

A publication who ultimately decided not to run the story,

Yeah, because they spike 50% of stories they commission.

But I published it and it got picked up by the internet and I did not get sued and neither did any of the women quoted because, well, see above.

I am willing to go to jail for perjury if my claim about Deen attacking me aren't true and I can answer questions about my accusations.

You can't.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 10:36:06 PM
Just because you didn't get sued doesn't mean you're automatically telling the truth. Mandy is suing you. Does that mean you're not telling the truth?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 28, 2022, 10:37:27 PM
Also. it didn't get "picked up" by anyone, you published it yourself on Medium, basically a blog.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:43:43 PM
Just because you didn't get sued doesn't mean you're automatically telling the truth.

No:

-my willingness to be responsible for what I said
-my willingness to go to jail if the security camera doesn't corroborate my story
-the specifics of accounts gathered accidentally before the claim was ever made
-the fact that witnesses who didn't know each other interviewed revealed very specific corroborating details that nobody else before me had ever discovered or mentioned
-the fact that I and they will answer questions
-the fact that we've never dodged by claiming our accusations were "shit talking" or anything else besides accusations
-the fact that none of us have ever trolled anyone


...means not that my story must be true (to anyone but us, Deens victims, who know), but that I followed the rules I ask others to follow if they want to make accusations.

There are all kinds of things you could invent to explain away what I would present as evidence in Deen's case--but I respected the public's need for me to be transparent and straightforward while making them and I did everything I could think of to be responsible to their need for clear information.

That's all I can do. If there were another thing that was physically possible to do to get justice for Deen's victims or prove the case I do not know what that is--but I am open to suggestions.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:44:52 PM
Also. it didn't get "picked up" by anyone, you published it yourself on Medium, basically a blog.

This isn't especially important but when I say "picked up" I mean specifically that larger news aggregator site like BoingBoing or something (I can't remember which) linked to it and made it so it got a lot of hits.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 10:47:59 PM
[
Your good faith bullshit is just that since you dint follow it yourself.

Your full of lies today...and quite likely this is your norm.

Incorrect.

So far as I know we didn't interact at all, then you spread misinformation here:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/540/

Doing what I'm morally obliged to do, I fact-checked you on that page.

You didn't apologize or take effective steps to undo the harm you did--at that point my obligation to play fair with you ended.

Even then you made requests for information and twice I offered you an agreement that I'd play fair with you if you did the same. You refused twice.

I did exactly what I tell other people they should do.
You're lying again.

Nobody should take your word on anything. I'm sure those closest to you have long known this...oh, and shared what a shit you are. I'm strongly inclined to believe them just based on your continued stream of lies here.

You really should apologize. And then...Stop. Lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:49:10 PM
...oh, and shared what a shit you are.


Personal attack.

If you think you have me lying, post the sentence where I lie
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 10:51:16 PM
...oh, and shared what a shit you are.


Personal attack.

If you think you have me lying, post the sentence where I lie
Already covered.

And you know it.

Now, do stop lying about it. I mean, it seems like you're playing dumb... But maybe you're not playing. Are you dumb, Zak, or are you lying?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 10:52:34 PM
Are you dumb, Zak, or are you lying?

If I were dumb I wouldn't know if I was dumb.

The easiest way to resolve your claim is to post whatever sentence you think has me lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 11:04:20 PM
Are you dumb, Zak, or are you lying?

If I were dumb I wouldn't know if I was dumb.

The easiest way to resolve your claim is to post whatever sentence you think has me lying.
Using your logic, you didn't answer the question so you must not know the answer. So you're dumb...or you're lying about not knowing the answer.

This would all go so much better if you would just stop lying.

As for reposting what has already been covered, I'm not going to do your work for you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 11:05:24 PM

Using your logic, you didn't answer the question so you must not know the answer. So you're dumb...or you're lying about not knowing the answer.

Or you were unclear.

Quote
As for reposting what has already been covered, I'm not going to do your work for you.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 11:10:32 PM

Using your logic, you didn't answer the question so you must not know the answer. So you're dumb...or you're lying about not knowing the answer.

Or you were unclear.

Quote
As for reposting what has already been covered, I'm not going to do your work for you.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.
Exactly. You made the accusation. You have no proof. Thus, you are lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 11:12:55 PM
Exactly. You made the accusation. You have no proof. Thus, you are lying.

I don't know which accusation you're referring to.

If you post it, I will prove it or else apologize for making a mistake.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 11:42:57 PM
Exactly. You made the accusation. You have no proof. Thus, you are lying.

I don't know which accusation you're referring to.

If you post it, I will prove it or else apologize for making a mistake.
I'm not doing the work for you. You are perfectly capable of doing the work necessary--you've bragged about doing it before. If you say you can't do it now, you're just lying. You should stop lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 28, 2022, 11:43:57 PM
I'm not doing the work for you. You are perfectly capable of doing the work necessary--you've bragged about doing it before. If you say you can't do it now, you're just lying. You should stop lying.

I can't hunt down a quote when I don't know what I'm looking for.

If you were acting in good faith you'd know that it's possible for someone to not know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 29, 2022, 12:03:29 AM
I'm not doing the work for you. You are perfectly capable of doing the work necessary--you've bragged about doing it before. If you say you can't do it now, you're just lying. You should stop lying.

I can't hunt down a quote when I don't know what I'm looking for.

If you were acting in good faith you'd know that it's possible for someone to not know what you're talking about.
This has already been covered.

You're playing dumb again because you're caught in a lie. Is it really so hard for you to stop lying?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 12:08:16 AM

You're playing dumb again because you're caught in a lie.

I guess we're caught in an impasse then.

I don't know what you think I lied about and you won't tell me.

This is a good example of the difference between a fake accusation and a real one:

When we were dealing with James Deen, if someone asked for clarification about something we'd said, we'd just give it.

Because we knew the crime we were talking about was real and that the victims were real and that the harm we were trying to prevent was real.

And we all knew there was no downside to a mutual agreement to act in good faith. Our obligation to the victims was more important than whatever the hell pleasure anyone might get out of trolling.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 29, 2022, 12:38:26 AM
This thread needs it's title changed to "Zak S The REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING"

It's amusing what HappyDerp is doing and I can't believe I'm the only one seeing it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 12:42:01 AM
This thread needs it's title changed to "Zak S The REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING"

It's amusing what HappyDerp is doing and I can't believe I'm the only one seeing it.

That's another thing we didn't do with James Deen.

Because we knew we were dealing with a real, actual problem, we didn't dodge and weave and innuendo and be all like lol what fun!

Ettin was the same way on his forum, He knew I had done nothing wrong, he was just trying to find a funny way to express his absolute undying nerd outrage that everyone didn't act like him.

You say stuff like this because it's comfortable, and it's comfortable because you know that I didn't actually do anything wrong and my worst crime actually is just refusing to post like the trolls on a troll forum.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 29, 2022, 10:45:09 AM
Zak, I've said you're an asshole.  I've provided a definition of the behaviors that make someone an asshole and I've demonstrated how you exhibit those behaviors.  I'm also willing to go to court to swear, under oath, that you're an asshole.  Personally, I think suing someone for saying mean things about you is on the dickish side of things, but hey, we have defamation laws for a reason.  That said, just because someone meets the legal definition of defamation doesn't mean that the accusation isn't true.  For example, if you were sued for claiming someone physically assaulted you without proof, you could be sued for defamation and you could lose

The legal system is funny.  Sometimes you're innocent of murdering your ex-wife but you're still guilty of violating her civil rights by killing her.  Saying you haven't been sued or that you've successfully sued someone isn't an airtight defense. 

Now, regarding credibility, that's your favorite line of attack.  You like to pretend that if someone said something that wasn't true EVER that they're a liar and that everything they say is automatically false until proven otherwise.  That's a crazy standard and you're an asshole to keep demanding that it be accepted. First off, a lie implies intent to deceive.  Sometimes, people are honestly mistaken.  For example, during this conversation the topic of catching flies with vinegar or honey came up, and 'common knowledge' is false.  You actually do catch more flies with vinegar.  People repeatedly making a false claim doesn't make them liars - it makes them misinformed, but there's good reason you can find bad information even if you do your research.  People still believe that carrots give you good night vision, and that comes from a deliberate misinformation campaign by the Royal Air Force during World War II to avoid revealing the existence of radar.  Well Zak, even if someone was wrong, once, it doesn't mean that they're always wrong.  And even if they were wrong, that doesn't mean that they INTENDED to be deceitful. 

For example, I've read Mandy's accusations.  Even if they rose to the level of defamation in court, that doesn't mean that the substance is false.  Maybe you never did any gaslighting in your relationship, but you APPEAR to be doing so in this conversation.  You claim things that were said were never said; you claim that you rebutted arguments that you never rebutted; you claim that you support all of your accusations (burden of proof is on the accuser) but we can't find that support.  You demand to be believed but insist that everyone that says anything you don't like is not to be trusted.  It's a double-standard and is the core of my argument that you're an asshole. 

Now, you've implied that people who say mean things about you on the internet do so because they have a bad life and they'd like to see people who are better than them brought down.  To support this interpretation of your point, I'll enter into evidence the following quote:

Quote from: Zak S
Since the court process began I've seen lots of conversations with trolls where basically the same thing happens: to them, they're just being a merry prankster on the internet (and often, they'll admit, explicitly because their real life sucks).

I want you to know that I'm coming here today because I think you're an asshole and it has nothing to do with jealousy or disappointment in my own life.  While anyone could lie about anything on the internet, I have no reason to lie.  On 8/13 I received my last paycheck.  My YTD Gross Pay was $97,239.56.  That means with my paycheck on Friday I'll have hit $100k and change, and I still have several months to go.  Since a chunk of my pay is performance based, I don't know where I'll end up when everything is said and done, but it's reasonable to suppose that it'll be at least $120k.  My wife is a professor at a major research institution, and she'll bring in $80-90k.  That puts our household income at around $200k, or in the top 10% of earners nationally.  We live in a 4 bedroom house + bonus with our three daughters aged 7-15, who are all attending decent public schools in our area.  Zillow estimates my house is worth $575,000, and I paid less than $300k for it 10 years ago.  Even with the troubled stock market, I have significant retirement savings and insurance.  I've been able to take multiple trips to France and we've taken our kids to a family vacation at Disneyworld in the last year.  This is the life I've chosen for myself, and it makes me very happy.  In addition to a successful career and a happy family, I play RPGs with my friends just about every week.  We play a game that we designed ourselves that addresses what we felt were the core issues with 3.x - it's crunchy, cinematic, and we all know and follow the rules. 

Now, I lay all of this out there knowing that you intend to attack me because when the topic of conversation is 'Zak is an asshole' you're deeply uncomfortable and desperately want to change the subject.  Well here's the thing - I'm happy with my life.  I'm not making a point of telling you you're an asshole because of any deep, unmet, psychological need.  My motivation is the same one you claim for yourself - I believe that the truth needs to be said.  It is because I am not psychologically fragile that I feel it's my obligation to speak out.  I know that there are good people who do live in more unfortunate circumstances, and I know that you'll insinuate and attack those circumstances given the chance because of your pathological need to demean those that dislike you.  Well, Zak, your petty insults like calling people 'virgin' don't bother me because they're laughably false. 

Now, this being the internet, I know you think that if you keep saying the same thing over 250+ posts without context or support, and you keep claiming that you said things you did not, or your opponents said things they did not, you think that some observers will believe that you've 'won' and proven that you're not an asshole.  I think that shows a real disrespect for other people.  While it's true that some people might be fooled, the sheer volume of evidence is pretty convincing. 

I'm glad that other people shared some of the other examples of people unrelated to this forum calling you an asshole.  I don't think that something is true just because the majority of people believe it (see flies and honey, for instance), but I'm not so arrogant to refuse to believe that if a large number of people believe something that it can't be true.  Either you're an asshole and a lot of people know it, or you're NOT as asshole and you're so bad at communicating that you've tricked a whole lot of smart people into believing it anyway.  Which is just another way of saying you're an asshole, really.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 12:52:20 PM
You're doing the thing again where you change the subject from the provable, important thing (you're dishonest) to strawman descriptions of my claims and your favorite silly, subjective, no-stakes thing (you don't like me) (Including, hilariously, claiming all your money means you're happy and have no irrational motive to do harm--whatever you say, Mr Trump.)

As for the important thing, your dishonesty:

.... You like to pretend that if someone said something that wasn't true EVER that they're a liar and that everything they say is automatically false until proven otherwise.  That's a crazy standard and you're an asshole to keep demanding that it be accepted. First off, a lie implies intent to deceive.  .... 

It's not just that you said a thing that wasn't true.

It was that when it's pointed out, as I will do here:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

...you didn't go "Oh I made a mistake, I'm sorry" or even acknowledge the problem being pointed out.

You just kept attacking.

An honest person would have:

-Apologized for the mistake and made an effort to repair the damage that had been done by their misinformation
or
-Said something like "No, you're wrong, my quote was the same in substance as what you said, here's why..."

...and gotten into it in detail, and made sure the facts were mutually clear and then moved on with any other attack they felt was valid.

You just double down and kept on trucking--and keep asserting new claims instead of addressing it like an honest person would.

And, more than that--you aren't just doubling down on that behavior, you're tripling, quadrupling, just endlessly trying to paper over a completely obvious demonstration that you got a fact wrong in a 100% clear way and keep just trying to introduce muddier claims or piggyback off other people trolling, telling random jokes. You're being avoidant. And not just like me using "avoidant" as a buzzword to sound smart but literally being "avoidant" in a way that literal shrinks who looks at the behavior of people like you for a living (including ones who have looked at this exact case https://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2022/02/nickoten-and-erika-muse-goons-on-trial.html ) point to and calls "avoidant" and the way Sarah Schulman describes in a whole book about the subject of how to handle conflicting claims. You are being avoidant in exactly the way Ettin was when he got cornered on his favorite troll site. When I say your behavior is "textbook" I'm saying that literally in the academic sense:

You were caught in a real or apparent contradiction and instead of recognizing the necessity to resolve that (even in your own favor) you just moved on and attacked your victim in other ways.

The format of internet discussion makes it very easy for you to dodge and duck and change the subject and generally be avoidant in a way a person in a real conversation at a real dinner table never could and because of anonymity, or because of peer pressure on this site to act like a pseudo-macho attack dog to fit in, or because you want to manipulate trolls into liking you by fitting in, or because you're a closet sadist, or because you just decided long ago that if someone ever rubs you the wrong way in an inarticulable way that you can't quite bring to the level of a consistent standard they don't deserve fairness, or because you decided if they rub you the wrong way due to standards you can't admit publicly they don't deserve fairness, you took that bait and went along the easy and worse path.

The fact that avoidance is an internet norm or an rpgsite norm doesn't make it better any more than it excuses anyone else who sees an angry mob and grabs their torch and pitchfork.

That's how we know you're dishonest --and a bad person.

Does that mean everything you say is false?

No, it just means:

-that if you say something and its contradicted by someone else who doesn't have your dishonesty problem, you are the less credible party and so its not rational to trust you over them.

-that it is bad to take action based on your claims

-that when you summarize something that is available in a less convenient form, people interested in the matter should ignore your summary and instead consult the less-convenient direct thing

-that people need to be warned that you are dishonest to prevent harm.

etc
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 01:52:01 PM
And, if you want to say you felt comfortable and justified being a dodging, squirming weasel because I broke faith first:

Fine, then have that conversation.

As far as I know the first time we ever interacted (since you liked to it in this thread) was you misrepresenting me in connection with some fantasy about you shoving your tongue in someone's throat.

If there's a time before that which offended you-- say what it is and I'll be happy to review whatever behavior it is that set you on this fucked up path.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 01:58:14 PM
justified being a dodging, squirming weasel

This is what I'm talking about... I don't see how this helps you in any situation.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 01:59:55 PM
justified being a dodging, squirming weasel

This is what I'm talking about... I don't see how this helps you in any situation.

I am not here to "help me". I am here out of a moral obligation to point out that this person is doing a bad thing.

Do you understand?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 02:06:22 PM
justified being a dodging, squirming weasel

This is what I'm talking about... I don't see how this helps you in any situation.

I am not here to "help me". I am here out of a moral obligation to point out that this person is doing a bad thing.

Do you understand?

Sure... Okay.

But do you think using personal attacks will prove that person is actually doing a bad thing?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 02:09:59 PM
justified being a dodging, squirming weasel

This is what I'm talking about... I don't see how this helps you in any situation.

I am not here to "help me". I am here out of a moral obligation to point out that this person is doing a bad thing.

Do you understand?

Sure... Okay.

But do you think using personal attacks will prove that person is actually doing a bad thing?

No I think all the proof the person did a bad thing will prove it:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


...and since it's by no means a first strike personal attack (everyone can see the constant stream of insult and bluster from Mr Trump above) I'm not doing anything wrong.

It's odd you're not asking him questions. Or, it would be odd outside the social norms here.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 09:11:38 PM
justified being a dodging, squirming weasel

This is what I'm talking about... I don't see how this helps you in any situation.

I am not here to "help me". I am here out of a moral obligation to point out that this person is doing a bad thing.

Do you understand?

Sure... Okay.

But do you think using personal attacks will prove that person is actually doing a bad thing?

No I think all the proof the person did a bad thing will prove it:



Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Quote
Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "…I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications.” ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Quote
Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.


...and since it's by no means a first strike personal attack (everyone can see the constant stream of insult and bluster from Mr Trump above) I'm not doing anything wrong.

It's odd you're not asking him questions. Or, it would be odd outside the social norms here.

Well, at least we agree on the first portion of your answer. The second part seems to be more nebulous. As it's very hard to gauge how readers will interpret your answers V DMS, etc.

As to your second point why I'm asking you questions and not the others is simple because:

A) I know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, and have given my thoughts on it - Basically a perception that you're not willing to engage with them, even when they try to be genuine all this has led to mudflining on all sides.

B) This is basically a thread about you and what's going on.

C) And this is the big one for me, I'm also very curious as to why you seem to be playing into the hands of your enemies. I find that exceedingly counterproductive. Having said that, you have in some part explained your rationale for doing so. And as I intimated it's not a route I would go if I was in your shoes. So on that one, we will have to agree to disagree.

Lastly, if your asking me about 'social norms' on this site (even if it is a dig at me), then that's one thing I can't help you with. I mean, I'd be pretty much hated here, because: I'm an old lefty, atheist, anti-religion (not religious people), pro-abortion, pro-vax, anti-Trump (I could go on).

What brings me here, is that I vehemently oppose wokescolds and their nanny-state enforcement and general censorship within games. So the enemy of my enemy and all that... But furthermore, I actually respect people's right to have their own views even if they deviate far from mine - Assuming they are not trying to fuck up anyone's 'human rights'. But that's a whole different discussion and if I get into that (or religion again) I'm sure pundit will fuck me out.  ;D





Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 09:17:42 PM


A) I know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, and have given my thoughts on it - Basically a perception that you're not willing to engage with them, even when they try to be genuine all this has led to mudflining on all sides.


Whether it's a "perception" or not, it's objectively false.

Everyone who is in conflict with me in this thread right now was the aggressor and broke good faith discussion pretty much immediately--often to the point of simply opening a conversation with misinformation or a personal attack (you can go back and check that). This thread began with me posting in earnest and them showing up to troll. Which, in every case I'm aware of, is how they've always been. Ive never trolled anyone on the internet ever.

It's not like I showed up while they were talking about something specifically to lie about them.

In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.

So any perception that I'm not genuine is objectively false. They aren't being genuine because they chose not to be, I am being genuine because I am morally obligated to be and I believe in moral obligations.

Quote
B) This is basically a thread about you and what's going on.
Yes and what's going on is a hatemob of which they are part. So it's about them, too.

Quote
C) And this is the big one for me, I'm also very curious as to why you seem to be playing into the hands of your enemies.
They want the support of trolls. They get that by trolling.

Only bad people want that.

I don't want that. I have a different goal.

Their goal is served best if they're allowed uncontested speech, and you're not contesting it, so someone else has to.

Plus no matter how much fodder I give them to troll about, nothing they say could possibly sway a rational person because they can't have rational conversations--(since that requires answering questions.)

Quote
And as I intimated it's not a route I would go if I was in your shoes. So on that one, we will have to agree to disagree.
Well the route of accommodating trolls has objctively not worked at all and made the problems worse.

So I can't imagine why you'd keep accommodating them, other than fear for your personal safety, status, etc.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 29, 2022, 09:40:07 PM
Anyone else just scroll on past Zak's walls of text, or is it just me?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 09:42:14 PM
Anyone else just scroll on past Zak's walls of text, or is it just me?


They want the support of trolls. They get that by trolling.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 09:43:16 PM


A) I know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, and have given my thoughts on it - Basically a perception that you're not willing to engage with them, even when they try to be genuine all this has led to mudflining on all sides.


Whether it's a "perception" or not, it's objectively false.

Everyone who is in conflict with me in this thread right now was the aggressor and broke good faith discussion pretty much immediately--often to the point of simply opening a conversation with misinformation or a personal attack (you can go back and check that). This thread began with me posting in earnest and them showing up to troll. Which, in every case I'm aware of, is how they've always been. Ive never trolled anyone on the internet ever.

It's not like I showed up while they were talking about something specifically to lie about them.

In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.

So any perception that I'm not genuine is objectively false. They aren't being genuine because they chose not to be, I am being genuine because I am morally obligated to be and I believe in moral obligations.

Quote
B) This is basically a thread about you and what's going on.
Yes and what's going on is a hatemob of which they are part. So it's about them, too.

Quote
C) And this is the big one for me, I'm also very curious as to why you seem to be playing into the hands of your enemies.
They want the support of trolls. They get that by trolling.

Only bad people want that.

I don't want that. I have a different goal.

Their goal is served best if they're allowed uncontested speech, and you're not contesting it, so someone else has to.

Plus no matter how much fodder I give them to troll about, nothing they say could possibly sway a rational person because they can't have rational conversations--(since that requires answering questions.)

Quote
And as I intimated it's not a route I would go if I was in your shoes. So on that one, we will have to agree to disagree.
Well the route of accommodating trolls has objctively not worked at all and made the problems worse.

So I can't imagine why you'd keep accommodating them, other than fear for your personal safety, status, etc.


This is the problem with trying to communicate with people through text. It's often hard to make certain points understood and the motives behind them.

I don't want to tread on old ground, but I feel I have to clear this up at least: In 'no way' am I suggesting you should 'accommodate' the trolls. I said that before...
It's about losing the 'perception', that a number of people have, (and it goes beyond this forum, FB, etc.) that don't think you're a nice person online. We have differing opinions on its effectiveness.

Sure you can bring the haters into it if you want. But I think some have tried to ask you stuff (genuinely, if after the fact) but you've set up that rigid bullet point thingey. And I've stated why I don't think it's valid.

At the end of the day, and as I've said this to tube sock. I think you're your own worst enemy. I'm not having a dig at you here... That's just my perception (you obviously don't view it that way).







Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 09:48:34 PM
I don't want to tread on old ground, but I feel I have to clear this up at least: In 'no way' am I suggesting you should 'accommodate' the trolls.

Failing to call them out when they post in bad faith or post misinformation is accommodating them.

You don't call them out, yet still post.

You've repeatedly said you choose to not and do a different thing (including pal around with Venger Satanis).

So: that's accommodating them.


Quote
But I think some have tried to ask you stuff (genuinely, if after the fact) but you've set up that rigid bullet point thingey. And I've stated why I don't think it's valid.

And you were incorrect to say that and I'm going to reiterate why:

1) If someone who has already trolled and acted in bad faith asks for evidence and I do the work to provide it and then they do what trolls do and fail to acknowledge that their request was asked and answered and they were wrong, i just did work for nothing. This asymmetric situation would truly just be allowing them to take advantage of me being honest.

2) Simply going "Ok if I play fair will you" ? and they say no is sufficient to prove to any rational reader they can't be trusted. I don't need to go beyond that. At that point anyone worth talking to goes "Ok, the people Zak's talking to are acting like sociopaths" and it's done.

3) the perception of those pretty much normal every day rules as "rigid" is super weird since people are expected to be responsible for what they say irl all the time. It's not weird at the dinner table to ask a question and then everybody knows you're being squirmy if you don't answer.

4) "Because style" is not a great argument in a moral conflict with actual stakes.

So if you want to keep claiming this is bad, you should say why--again, not why I won't convince trolls (we all know that) but why it's bad to do the right thing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 29, 2022, 10:16:46 PM
Zak,

You're doing that thing again where you take a portion of a post and pretend you responded to the whole thing.  In the 'tongue post, I said 'we know that if we ask nicely Zak will give us that bonus any other of number of a dozen digferent ways'.  And you called me crazy before admitting that, yeah, you can get that bonus a 'bazillion ways'.  You know, the thing that I said was consistent with your stated position and exactly what you admitted to two days later.  Of course, by that definition you lied and failed to apologize first

As for money, my point was that I do alright.  As for children, my point is that as far as serial activity, I do alright.  As far as playing D&D, my point is that I get to engage in my hobbies in ways that are fun for me.  I'm not incapable of understanding the aspersions you cast obliquely implying that I'm only here because I'm jealous of how wonderful your life is.  My point (which seems to have enraged you to cause you to post multiple times in a row) is that my reason to be here is the one you claim - to make sure the truth is told - specifically that you are an asshole and everyone deserves to know the truth.

As for signed legal documents limiting the manner in which I can speak, yes, I do decline.  This forum and the content of my posts exactly serves my purposes.  If you want ANOTHER forum for conversation that meets your preference, I have expressed a willingness to appear in court to defend myself against allegations of defaming your character.  Based on your many comments to the effect, I can only presume that you having NOT PURSUED LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ME is that you admit that my allegations are true (you are an asshole) and you accept that this thread provides substantial proof to that effect.  But keep trying to gaslight the audience.  As I've said multiple times, one of the most significant differences between us is that I believe in the audience's ability to come to their own conclusion. 

Why are you afraid to let them read the 'allegations' and your claimed 'rebuttals' and reach a conclusion?  You do realize that most of your posts are you spamming the same response over and over?  Who do you think will be swayed by hearing the same exact response for the thirtieth time?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 10:19:00 PM
I have expressed a willingness to appear in court to defend myself against allegations of defaming your character. 

You said you'd testify that you thought I was an asshole.

But will you testify to all the other assertions you've made about me on here?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 10:20:47 PM
You're doing that thing again where you take a portion of a post and pretend you responded to the whole thing.  In the 'tongue post, I said 'we know that if we ask nicely Zak will give us that bonus any other of number of a dozen digferent ways'.  And you called me crazy before admitting that, yeah, you can get that bonus a 'bazillion ways'.  You know, the thing that I said was consistent with your stated position and exactly what you admitted to two days later.  Of course, by that definition you lied and failed to apologize first

"A bazillion ways" does not necessarily include your tongue-shoving fantasy.

So: no.

But more importantly, simple yes or no:

Is that post the first time you're aware of us ever interacting?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on August 29, 2022, 10:21:24 PM
In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.
I thought you were just an asshole.
I was wrong.
You're an idiot too.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 10:23:21 PM
In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.
I thought you were just an asshole.
I was wrong.
You're an idiot too.

You're going to have to argue that out with the other troll above who insisted I'm not an idiot.

I don't know which one of you to believe.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 10:42:34 PM
I don't want to tread on old ground, but I feel I have to clear this up at least: In 'no way' am I suggesting you should 'accommodate' the trolls.

Failing to call them out when they post in bad faith or post misinformation is accommodating them.

You don't call them out, yet still post.

You've repeatedly said you choose to not and do a different thing (including pal around with Venger Satanis).

So: that's accommodating them.

This is quite interesting... You seem to be tangling up what I've been saying, is this deliberate? Hmm... I'll let the lurkers decide.

So now you're putting the onus on me to call out these guys? No can do... (or will do!). For one I don't have a lot of specifics on which to do so. I have no idea what you and DMW are talking about. I'm scanning that at best...

Also, I've seen those chaps on a number of different threads and I don't have anything against them. I've also seen them try to be 'honest' with you too and you've pretty much handwaved them away.

That's tru... I certainly wouldn't handle things the way you do. But that has very little to do with 'trolls' I'm talking about an overall perception. I feel I've been very clear on that point. But I'll leave that to the lurkers to decide...

I'm not sure what Venger has to do with this all of a sudden. But I'll bite...  I certainly can't call Venger a friend, but I've chatted to him on YT and on the forums. Besides his politics, he seems like a good guy. That is to say, I'd happily have a pint with him if he was in the neighborhood. If you and him have some kind of a beef that has nothing to do with me (if that's what you're implying, again I can't be sure).

Talking with you is very odd... One moment things seem to be moving along, then out of nowhere - it goes all Salvadore Dali.

I'm genuinely confused...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 10:45:41 PM
I've also seen them try to be 'honest' with you too and you've pretty much handwaved them away.


I didn't "handwave" them--I gave a very specific reason:

-They didn't begin the conversation in a good faith way or apologize for that
-They didn't agree to a mutual agreement to have a good faith conversation

...did you miss that part?

Quote
I'm not sure what Venger has to do with this all of a sudden.

Simple: Venger's a troll. Venger says things he won't stand behind--publicly.

So palling around with him is bad. Unless the ultimate goal there is to get him into therapy.

Are you now unconfused?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 11:01:55 PM
I've also seen them try to be 'honest' with you too and you've pretty much handwaved them away.


I didn't "handwave" them--I gave a very specific reason:

-They didn't begin the conversation in a good faith way or apologize for that
-They didn't agree to a mutual agreement to have a good faith conversation

...did you miss that part?

Quote
I'm not sure what Venger has to do with this all of a sudden.

Simple: Venger's a troll. Venger says things he won't stand behind--publicly.

So palling around with him is bad. Unless the ultimate goal there is to get him into therapy.

Are you now unconfused?


No, I didn't as it happens... Your uber 'rigid structure' (the bullet point thingey) and the way you apply it seem exceedingly unreasonable (as for reasons already given). Taking things in such a literal manner is unworkable from my perspective.

Depends on what you mean by Venger being a troll. So he released a few modules that pissed off Drivthru? What's the big deal? Fuck 'em...

I don't know anything about him not 'standing behind stuff'. But that's hearsay...

And I'd really rather not bring Venger into this.
.





Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 29, 2022, 11:03:04 PM

Are you now unconfused?

I am.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 29, 2022, 11:12:50 PM
No, I didn't as it happens... Your uber 'rigid structure' (the bullet point thingey) and the way you apply it seem exceedingly unreasonable (as for reasons already given). Taking things in such a literal manner is unworkable from my perspective.
I'll repeat for the third time and I'dask you to actually address the statement made to you:
People manage to follow this. "ultra rigid" (not rigid) stucture all the time in most real life social situations.

Other than the fact that it is unpopular on some internet forums why do you think it;s bad?

Quote
Depends on what you mean by Venger being a troll.

This has nothing to do with his releases.

Venger posted negative statements on the internet about other people that he won't back up or engage about.

That makes him a troll.

If you don't believe that he did that, you may ask for examples.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 06:20:20 AM
No, I didn't as it happens... Your uber 'rigid structure' (the bullet point thingey) and the way you apply it seem exceedingly unreasonable (as for reasons already given). Taking things in such a literal manner is unworkable from my perspective.
I'll repeat for the third time and I'dask you to actually address the statement made to you:
People manage to follow this. "ultra rigid" (not rigid) stucture all the time in most real life social situations.

Other than the fact that it is unpopular on some internet forums why do you think it;s bad?

Quote
Depends on what you mean by Venger being a troll.

This has nothing to do with his releases.

Venger posted negative statements on the internet about other people that he won't back up or engage about.

That makes him a troll.

If you don't believe that he did that, you may ask for examples.

The way you wish to engage with people re. the rigid structure. I've addressed that several times and why I think it is unworkable. But you don't agree...
So not really much point in reiterating it (refer back to my earlier posts if you wish to see my thoughts on it again).

As I stated earlier... I don't know what these incidents are re. Venger and I don't really wish to bring him into the conversation. I don't think it serves a purpose.









Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 06:34:04 AM

The way you wish to engage with people re. the rigid structure. I've addressed that several times and why I think it is unworkable. But you don't agree...
So not really much point in reiterating it (refer back to my earlier posts if you wish to see my thoughts on it again).

You keep saying over and over that it's not workable/good/the way you want to do things but you're not saying why (other than: "it's not popular")

Could you please stop repeating that and instead, in detail say why you think it's a bad way to interact with people--especially considering the fact I've laid out already:

--that other people in social situations manage to do it all the time?

--and doing things your way has lead to terrible outcomes for the RPG community

Quote
As I stated earlier... I don't know what these incidents are re. Venger and I don't really wish to bring him into the conversation. I don't think it serves a purpose.

It serves a very clear purpose:

You are proposing a different way of dealing with trolls than I do.

And one of the outcomes of that different way is: being friendly and enabling a harmful troll named Venger Satanis.

So it's super-relevant to the conversation, since the conversation is about whether its good to do things your way or mine or some other way.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:01:40 AM

The way you wish to engage with people re. the rigid structure. I've addressed that several times and why I think it is unworkable. But you don't agree...
So not really much point in reiterating it (refer back to my earlier posts if you wish to see my thoughts on it again).

You keep saying over and over that it's not workable/good/the way you want to do things but you're not saying why (other than: "it's not popular")

Could you please stop repeating that and instead, in detail say why you think it's a bad way to interact with people--especially considering the fact I've laid out already:

--that other people in social situations manage to do it all the time?

--and doing things your way has lead to terrible outcomes for the RPG community

Quote
As I stated earlier... I don't know what these incidents are re. Venger and I don't really wish to bring him into the conversation. I don't think it serves a purpose.

It serves a very clear purpose:

You are proposing a different way of dealing with trolls than I do.

And one of the outcomes of that different way is: being friendly and enabling a harmful troll named Venger Satanis.

So it's super-relevant to the conversation, since the conversation is about whether its good to do things your way or mine or some other way.

Hmm... You've not grasped the way I do things obviously, and I certainly will stop 'repeating' myself. All the answers are in the posts I've made and I've specifically broken them down - Tho you may disagree.

As I said... Venger has been decent to me and I'm unaware of your accusations. And I don't think airing your grievance with Venger is very productive.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:06:15 AM

Hmm... You've not grasped the way I do things obviously

I've grasped a specific aspect of what you do:

You do what most other people do

Since most people do it, and the situation in the RPG scene is fucked due to people doing what you do, then I am asking how can you defend it?

Quote
As I said... Venger has been decent to me and I'm unaware of your accusations. And I don't think airing your grievance with Venger is very productive.

Venger has objectively made false public statements about people.

Again: if you need evidence, please say that.

If you don't care that he's made false statements, please say that.

But at any rate: please specifically address the specific point rather than backing the conversation up into vague generalities.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:16:01 AM

Hmm... You've not grasped the way I do things obviously

I've grasped a specific aspect of what you do:

You do what most other people do

Since most people do it, and the situation int he RPG scene is fucked, then I am asking how can you defend it?

Quote
As I said... Venger has been decent to me and I'm unaware of your accusations. And I don't think airing your grievance with Venger is very productive.

Venger has objectively made false public statements about people.

Again: if you need evidence, please say that.

If you don't care that he's made false statements, please say that.

But at any rate: please specifically address the specific point rather than backing up to vague generalities.

Which aspect specifically do you want me to defend?

You can set up a false dichotomy with Venger if you wish. To get that 'gotcha' moment which appears to be your trademark (as some pointed out of this thread earlier).

Not knowing exactly what Venger said makes it completely irrelevant to me. If he, or anyone acted in a way that I thought was unethical I would say it. I'm certainly not afraid of shooting my mouth off.

But I do think, you are also engaging in a bit of chicanery when talking to people. Having a convo with you is like walking on egshells.







Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:19:26 AM

Which aspect specifically do you want me to defend?


People troll and present misinformation and you don't forcefully point it out.

Quote
You can set up a false dichotomy with Venger if you wish.
at no point did I say I wanted to set up a "dichotomy" or one that was "false"

I said a completely unrelated thing:

Venger has publicly made false statements.

Just to simplify things, and go step by step:

Do you understand the following sentence "Venger has made publicly made false statements"?

That's a "yes" or "no" question. Do you understand it?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:22:05 AM

Which aspect specifically do you want me to defend?


People troll and present misinformation and you don't forcefully point it out.

Quote
You can set up a false dichotomy with Venger if you wish.
at no point did I say I wanted to set up a "dichotomy" or one that was "false"

I said a completely unrelated thing:

Venger has publicly made false statements.

Just to simplify things, and go step by step:

Do you understand the following sentence "Venger has made publicly made false statements"?

A) Okay.
B) Yes.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 07:22:49 AM


A) I know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, and have given my thoughts on it - Basically a perception that you're not willing to engage with them, even when they try to be genuine all this has led to mudflining on all sides.


Whether it's a "perception" or not, it's objectively false.

Everyone who is in conflict with me in this thread right now was the aggressor and broke good faith discussion pretty much immediately--often to the point of simply opening a conversation with misinformation or a personal attack (you can go back and check that). This thread began with me posting in earnest and them showing up to troll. Which, in every case I'm aware of, is how they've always been. Ive never trolled anyone on the internet ever.

It's not like I showed up while they were talking about something specifically to lie about them.

In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.

So any perception that I'm not genuine is objectively false. They aren't being genuine because they chose not to be, I am being genuine because I am morally obligated to be and I believe in moral obligations.

Quote
B) This is basically a thread about you and what's going on.
Yes and what's going on is a hatemob of which they are part. So it's about them, too.

Quote
C) And this is the big one for me, I'm also very curious as to why you seem to be playing into the hands of your enemies.
They want the support of trolls. They get that by trolling.

Only bad people want that.

I don't want that. I have a different goal.

Their goal is served best if they're allowed uncontested speech, and you're not contesting it, so someone else has to.

Plus no matter how much fodder I give them to troll about, nothing they say could possibly sway a rational person because they can't have rational conversations--(since that requires answering questions.)

Quote
And as I intimated it's not a route I would go if I was in your shoes. So on that one, we will have to agree to disagree.
Well the route of accommodating trolls has objctively not worked at all and made the problems worse.

So I can't imagine why you'd keep accommodating them, other than fear for your personal safety, status, etc.
This is a BIG FUCKING LIE.

You're so stuck on yourself that you just can't tell when you're lying, can you? Here's a hint: it's whenever your fingers are typing.

Stop lying, Zak.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:25:39 AM

This is a BIG FUCKING LIE.

You're so stuck on yourself that you just can't tell when you're lying, can you? Here's a hint: it's whenever your fingers are typing.

Stop lying, Zak.

It's unclear to me which claim you think I'm lying about.

For example, my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:26:44 AM

You're so stuck on yourself that you just can't tell when you're lying, can you? Here's a hint: it's whenever your fingers are typing.

Stop lying, Zak.

Yeah... Seems to be a lot of zig zaking going on now :).

Again it's quite interesting... He basically can't resist trying to get a "gotha" even when you are just trying to have a conversation. That's exceedingly weird.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:27:22 AM

Which aspect specifically do you want me to defend?


People troll and present misinformation and you don't forcefully point it out.

Quote
You can set up a false dichotomy with Venger if you wish.
at no point did I say I wanted to set up a "dichotomy" or one that was "false"

I said a completely unrelated thing:

Venger has publicly made false statements.

Just to simplify things, and go step by step:

Do you understand the following sentence "Venger has made publicly made false statements"?

A) Okay.
B) Yes.

Ok, so: if Venger had made false public statements would you see that as bad?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:27:44 AM
my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?

That's just you being childish...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:29:10 AM
my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?

That's just you being childish...

Since it's unclear what HD is referring to, I don't have much choice but to start at the extreme end of what they could mean and work my way in.

This is the problem with trolling: the line between things the sociopathic-acting troll actually is claiming and their sociopathic-acting believes and what's just a joke or hyperbole is blurred.

Asking for specifics fixes the problem and refusing to give them proves the troll is acting in bad faith.

People with real grievances want to be clear.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:30:44 AM
my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?

That's just you being childish...

Since it's unclear what HD is referring to, I don't have much choice but to start at the extreme end of what they could mean and work my way in.

No... That's you just being childish.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:31:59 AM
my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?

That's just you being childish...

Since it's unclear what HD is referring to, I don't have much choice but to start at the extreme end of what they could mean and work my way in.

No... That's you just being childish.

Then how do you propose--specifically--we figure out what claim this troll is tryin to claim are false?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:32:37 AM
Ok, so: if Venger had made false public statements would you see that as bad?

It depends on the nature of what is being said:

"I'm going to chop my neighbor's head off with a rusty machete!!!"

I've just made a false public statement.



 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:35:06 AM
Ok, so: if Venger had made false public statements would you see that as bad?

It depends on the nature of what is being said:

"I'm going to chop my neighbor's head off with a rusty machete!!!"

I've just made a false public statement.

So, instead of giving examples , can you describe, in english the difference between:

-The category of false public statement that would concern you and
-The category of false public statement that wouldn't.

For example:

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.

Can you do that?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:48:55 AM

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.


If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.

But isn't that obvious? In fact, I said words to that effect a while ago. Sigh...

I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently). Unlike my characters, I wasn't born psychic.

But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy, if you wish to paint me as a bad person. You wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last. But the only person I have to answer to is me (and my own standards).








 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 08:22:05 AM

This is a BIG FUCKING LIE.

You're so stuck on yourself that you just can't tell when you're lying, can you? Here's a hint: it's whenever your fingers are typing.

Stop lying, Zak.

It's unclear to me which claim you think I'm lying about.

For example, my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?
Look at your first statement for the lie in you last post.

Just. Stop. Lying.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 30, 2022, 09:24:27 AM
For those looking for a summary for the last few pages, Rob Necronomicon has been engaging Zak in a good-faith discussion where Zak tries multiple times to create a false dichotomy (either you believe in THE TRUTH or you're an EVIL TROLL) and sets requirements on Rob's actions to be accepted as 'acting in good faith'.  These requirements range from signing a legally binding document to calling out 'trolls' on this thread.  Zak has a tendency to create difficult burdens for everyone else and while he says they're just common-sense standards, he continually fails to meet them for his own statements. 

I'm waiting with baited breath for Rob to get to the point where he says, "Zak, I tried to engage you in good faith; you responded by doing all of the things that you've been accused of in this thread that people describe as 'being an asshole'; I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have proven to me by your actions to meet my personal definition of 'asshole'." 

I give it 7 hours. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 09:37:52 AM
For those looking for a summary for the last few pages, Rob Necronomicon has been engaging Zak in a good-faith discussion where Zak tries multiple times to create a false dichotomy (either you believe in THE TRUTH or you're an EVIL TROLL) and sets requirements on Rob's actions to be accepted as 'acting in good faith'.  These requirements range from signing a legally binding document to calling out 'trolls' on this thread.  Zak has a tendency to create difficult burdens for everyone else and while he says they're just common-sense standards, he continually fails to meet them for his own statements. 

I give it 7 hours.

Thanks for pointing that out. And I think you've made a very good summary of things thus far.

I've actually been trying to have an honest and polite conversation with Zak (which he may not believe... That's why I've accepted the few 'snarks' and subtle digs).
But as you say, trying to get that 'kodak moment' while trying to back me into a corner is futile. Because I simply won't deviate from what I've already said here on multiple occasions and I stand by my own ethics. He's welcome to disagree.

Of course, Zak is welcome to call me a 'bad person' too. I'm alright with that. I've been called far worse on this forum (and others!). :)









Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on August 30, 2022, 09:56:19 AM
For those looking for a summary for the last few pages, Rob Necronomicon has been engaging Zak in a good-faith discussion where Zak tries multiple times to create a false dichotomy (either you believe in THE TRUTH or you're an EVIL TROLL) and sets requirements on Rob's actions to be accepted as 'acting in good faith'.  These requirements range from signing a legally binding document to calling out 'trolls' on this thread.  Zak has a tendency to create difficult burdens for everyone else and while he says they're just common-sense standards, he continually fails to meet them for his own statements. 

I'm waiting with baited breath for Rob to get to the point where he says, "Zak, I tried to engage you in good faith; you responded by doing all of the things that you've been accused of in this thread that people describe as 'being an asshole'; I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have proven to me by your actions to meet my personal definition of 'asshole'." 

I give it 7 hours.
More like the Internet equivalent of several drunk dads slapfighting at the Little League game, but okay.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 09:58:42 AM
More like the Internet equivalent of several drunk dads slapfighting at the Little League game, but okay.

Yeah but... I'm not trying to have a metaphorical slap fight tho'. I just see it as a now as impossible conversation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 30, 2022, 10:28:54 AM
Zak telling someone to stop repeating themselves LOOOOOOOOOOL
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 30, 2022, 10:30:05 AM
For those looking for a summary for the last few pages, Rob Necronomicon has been engaging Zak in a good-faith discussion where Zak tries multiple times to create a false dichotomy (either you believe in THE TRUTH or you're an EVIL TROLL) and sets requirements on Rob's actions to be accepted as 'acting in good faith'.  These requirements range from signing a legally binding document to calling out 'trolls' on this thread.  Zak has a tendency to create difficult burdens for everyone else and while he says they're just common-sense standards, he continually fails to meet them for his own statements. 

I'm waiting with baited breath for Rob to get to the point where he says, "Zak, I tried to engage you in good faith; you responded by doing all of the things that you've been accused of in this thread that people describe as 'being an asshole'; I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have proven to me by your actions to meet my personal definition of 'asshole'." 

I give it 7 hours.
More like the Internet equivalent of several drunk dads slapfighting at the Little League game, but okay.

DON' YEW TALLG T'MY SUNNN THA' WAY MU'ERFUGGER
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 10:53:58 AM
Zak telling someone to stop repeating themselves LOOOOOOOOOOL

I had thought that was a 'tad' ironic alright.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Stumpydave on August 30, 2022, 03:01:04 PM
It's unclear to me which claim you think I'm lying about.

For example, my finger are typing now and I'm saying I have ten fingers. Are you claiming this is a lie?

Its either a lie, a physical mutation or you can't count.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 03:06:35 PM

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.


If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.


So, if I were to show you that Venger had done that, would you say Venger is doing something bad?


Quote
I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently).

No you just keep recommending that I don't do it ,which is confusing since you just agreed that what they do is bad.

Quote
But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,
I haven't said anything about whether you are happy or not.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 03:09:23 PM
For those looking for a summary for the last few pages, Rob Necronomicon has ...

Again:

Your claim I don't do what I ask others to do is based on claims about the past.

Was your claim about the tongue-shoving thing (which you linked to) the first time we interacted?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 30, 2022, 03:56:11 PM
Was your claim about the tongue-shoving thing (which you linked to) the first time we interacted?

No, it was not. 

But that's not really material, is it.  When you're being an asshole to other people and I directly witness it, I don't have to say 'he's not an asshole to me.  In fact, when someone is an asshole to someone else, most people acknowledge it to that person saying something like 'I'm sorry you had to deal with such an asshole'.  When several people have all had the experience of dealing with the same asshole, they start commiserating with each other, talking about their experience, and reassuring each other that they really didn't do anything to provoke the asshole in the first place. 

And if the behavior is pervasive enough, they'll start warning other people that they think are likely to have to deal with that asshole.  "Hey, maybe you're not going to have problems with him, but that Zak S. has been a real asshole to a bunch of us in the past.  We try to avoid him when possible." 


Several times over the past couple weeks since we've resumed our acquaintance, I've asked myself, "are you being fair to Zak?"  I've wondered, is it possible that reminding him over and over that he's an asshole has possibly bruised his over-inflated ego?  Might my comments be taken as bullying?  I mean, when you repeatedly embarrass someone who doesn't have the ability to see that they're the butt of the joke and everyone is laughing at them, maybe it'd be better to just leave them alone before everyone starts feeling sorry for them, and it undermines the point that you're trying to make.  Fortunately, you've been very explicit that I have no power over you, and therefore you don't think it's possible that I'm bullying. 

But Zak, in fairness to you, I want you to know that I don't have a compelling need to call you an asshole more than once per page.  So we're on Page 56 now, and if we never go to page 57, I'm done.  If we do go to Page 57, I'm going to call you an asshole again.  Likewise when we go to 58, etc, etc etc. I won't promise to ALWAYS call you an asshole every page - sometimes people post enough that I miss 3-4 pages at a time, and there's a chance that I find something else more personally rewarding than warning the internet about you, but my INTENTION is to make sure that whoever reads the last page of this thread, WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE, has no trouble finding a post that explains that I STILL THINK YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE.  And 56 pages into the conversation, I don't feel the need to litigate it; just to reiterate it. 

All the best, Zak. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 04:06:50 PM
Was your claim about the tongue-shoving thing (which you linked to) the first time we interacted?

No, it was not. 

But that's not really material, is it.  When you're being an asshole to other people and I directly witness it, I don't have to say 'he's not an asshole to me.

Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 06:32:46 PM

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.


If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.


So, if I were to show you that Venger had done that, would you say Venger is doing something bad?


Quote
I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently).

No you just keep recommending that I don't do it ,which is confusing since you just agreed that what they do is bad.

Quote
But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,
I haven't said anything about whether you are happy or not.

Again with the snarks but sure, okay...

A) I don't really want to know about Venger's so-called trolling. Again, I think I've been exceedingly clear on that. The main reason will be explained below.

B) You are not permitting any granularity withing the scope of trolling (or in a conversation for that matter, imo). You seem to see everything as trolling, even light banter between people.
 
To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harasment or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family.

So I stand by my statement. If you are unable to see the 'shades grey' and require a 'yes/no' binary answer then you won't get one. There are simply too many variables. At best, I will simply try to convey the same information using a different language in the hopes you 'get it'. I don't flip-flop unless someone convinces me that I'm wrong or haven't considered something. You have not done this yet...

And by trying to 'take the piss' and be 'snide' that only serves to make you look like what people say you are:  About your online presence not being very 'nice' and that has absolutely nothing to do with your court stuff, as I said before you deserve the chance to defend your name.

All this makes me believe that you are not someone that can be trusted to have a decent or straight conversation with. I've tried to be straight, polite, and have an informal chat, and yet you've continually tried to get that 'gotcha' Kodak moment for some pyrrhic victory (and I'm not really sure why).

C) Err... ok.

But best of luck to you... However, I really need to be doing something more creative with my time as this is just treading water. Sigh...








Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 06:38:09 PM
Zak, after you stated your income level, I started wondering why you aren't trying to turn your doggedness towards actually making money by doing some kind of work. Money might not buy you happiness, but poverty is generally worse.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 06:53:44 PM
Zak, after you stated your income level, I started wondering why you aren't trying to turn your doggedness towards actually making money by doing some kind of work. Money might not buy you happiness, but poverty is generally worse.

Since you were offered an opportunity to have a good faith discussion multiple times and explicitly refused there would be no point in going in to a conversation about all the inaccurate assumptions you made in that comment.

If you would like to reverse your previous decision and engage in a good faith discussion, say that.

I personally will make any guarantee to do that up to and including signing a contract.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 06:57:13 PM

What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harasment or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family.


The misinformation that people have spread here on this specific subject has driven more than one person close to suicide and has screwed their income to the point where it's hard to feed their family.

So:

The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 06:58:59 PM
The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

And what can you deduce that my response would be to that?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 06:59:07 PM

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.


If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.


So, if I were to show you that Venger had done that, would you say Venger is doing something bad?


Quote
I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently).

No you just keep recommending that I don't do it ,which is confusing since you just agreed that what they do is bad.

Quote
But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,
I haven't said anything about whether you are happy or not.

Again with the snarks but..

Which of these things is supposed to be snarky?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

And what can you deduce that my response would be to that?


I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:14:37 PM

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.


If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.


So, if I were to show you that Venger had done that, would you say Venger is doing something bad?


Quote
I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently).

No you just keep recommending that I don't do it ,which is confusing since you just agreed that what they do is bad.

Quote
But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,
I haven't said anything about whether you are happy or not.

Again with the snarks but..

Which of these things is supposed to be snarky?

Well, all of it... Especially the points about me being 'happy', continually using Venger, and attempts to get that gotcha' binary funneling. There are also previous examples of having subtle digs at me too. But I'm okay with that... Because I can see why you might consider me to be a possible troll. AKA - you probably consider everyone (or 99%) on this thread a 'hostile.' But as I said, I can't trust you to be fair with me despite me trying to chat with you. 

So your actions on this thread, towards me (and some others when they have tried to be honest even after the fact) leave me now unable to judge whether you're continually being sarcastic or not. That is my perception of the situation. As I said, I've tried to be open and honest with you but I don't think it's being reciprocated. Your perception of the conversation may be different, that's fine too.

So, best of luck, man.




Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:17:22 PM
The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

And what can you deduce that my response would be to that?


I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

Riiiight... More sarcasm?
I've answered this on more than one occasion -  So I'll just copy and paste:

"To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harassment, or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family."



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:20:58 PM
Well, all of it... Especially the points about me being 'happy'

You literally made a false assertion about me not knowing you're happy:

Quote
you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,

Pointing out I didn't do that isn't "snark".

Its a rational discussion of a claim you made.

Quote
There are also previous examples of having subtle digs at me too.

Literally what?

Quote
leave me now unable to judge whether you're continually being sarcastic or not.

The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 07:24:11 PM
Quote

I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

Riiiight... More sarcasm?

How is that sarcasm.

That is a 100% direct, specific earnest answer.

Quote
I've answered this on more than one occasion -  So I'll just copy and paste:

"To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harassment, or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family."

So I'm not following:

1. People on this thread have, objectively, spread misinformation including Venger.

2. This misinformation has resulted in people being pushed to exactly the threshold you're describing as morally meaningful (suicide, difficulty feeding their family)

3. So: the logical conclusion that I would see is that you'd decry the other folks in this thread spreading that kind of misinformation.

I dont' know--given those 3 things, why you aren't doing that.

It may be that you disagree with one of these premises, if so: I don't know what that is and it would be helpful if you'd tell me.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 07:25:37 PM
The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 08:16:06 PM
Quote

I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

Riiiight... More sarcasm?

How is that sarcasm.

That is a 100% direct, specific earnest answer.

Quote
I've answered this on more than one occasion -  So I'll just copy and paste:

"To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harassment, or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family."

So I'm not following:

1. People on this thread have, objectively, spread misinformation including Venger.

2. This misinformation has resulted in people being pushed to exactly the threshold you're describing as morally meaningful (suicide, difficulty feeding their family)

3. So: the logical conclusion that I would see is that you'd decry the other folks in this thread spreading that kind of misinformation.

I dont' know--given those 3 things, why you aren't doing that.

It may be that you disagree with one of these premises, if so: I don't know what that is and it would be helpful if you'd tell me.

A) How is it sarcasm you ask? Oky, but have I not already explained (twice now) that I can't tell if you taking the piss or not. You may disagree but I feel I'm being very clear here yet again.

B) So I've addressed this on numerous occasions. However, a couple of things now have come to light (from your latest post) and I feel it's important to address them.
 
First off I've not read all 57 pages - So I've only seen the later stuff. And some of it I still can't quite get my head around (Mike said this.. Mike didn't say that) ???
I've only come in at... Actually, I can't remember when I first joined the thread. Point is, I've not seen all the accusations.

I certainly have stated my support for you, in regards to you deserving a day in court, and against some very damaging allegations. I've also publically slated Drivethru for taking your income away (or part of it at least). That is grossly unfair in my estimation to do that based on 'allegations'. Gen Con can fuck off as well.

Other allegations that have been posted about you on that website (or whatever) I cannot 'prove or disprove'. Because it's all 'he said.. she said'. But it suffice to say, I don't accept anecdotal evidence unless it's absolutely overwhelming (Weinstein, etc.). Facts only when it comes to the law, science, medicine, etc...

Again, without having seen specifics that have been posted on this thread I can't counter it. Because I just haven't seen them (57 pages!!).

But what you seem to want to know is if I'd call someone out, if I saw some particular very nasty piece of evidence that really 'hurt' you, had you near to suicide, and affected your income? I absolutely fucking would. Why? Because that's going into some serious shit right there (as I've stated previously that's gone waaaay over a bit of trolling).

So yes, I would call someone out if I thought they were putting you into (or anyone) that type of space. It's the humanitarian thing to do...
But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending ad-hominem attacks or a bit of mudslinging. It's a particular style of the forum and we all need to have a bit of skin armor too.

So while I'll always support you (under those specific and very dangerous conditions).

I'd also stand by what I said earlier (and this is IMO):

A) I think you are your own worst enemy.
B) You're a hard man to like given the way you, snark and talk down to people (and you do it quite a lot).

C) I can't tell whether you're just trying to 'make me look like a fool' or not - because of the jibes, chicanery, enforced bullet point criteria, and false dichotomies - This is my personal perception. I'm not stating 'verifiable fact' here, because I can't one way or the other. I don't know what's in your mind. I'm only going on what and how you've posted here to me.

Thus I can't really have a proper conversation with you...

Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 09:03:50 PM
The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.


A good faith conversation is one where by definition both parties assume the other person means what they say unless they can prove otherwise. You don't judge based on innuendo, guesses, vibes, or second-hand claims or even on "the balance of evidence"--you judge based only on hard proof. A good faith discussion means you assume the person means what they say unless you can prove they don't.

That's one of the things "Good faith conversation" means. Literally.

If you can't do that, you can't have a good faith conversation.

As for the rest:

But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending...

They have gone way beyond mere namecalling. They have accused me of specific things I objectively provably didn't do, including lying and not following my own suggestions as to what others should do.

These specific accusations have almost lead (and might actually lead) to suicide and have lead to massive being-unable-to-feed-family situations for multiple people.

Can you address that issue: that the false claims made here go way beyond mere namecaling?


Quote
Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.

See above for how you didn't. Please address them if you want to have a good faith discussion.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 09:14:31 PM
Zak, after you stated your income level, I started wondering why you aren't trying to turn your doggedness towards actually making money by doing some kind of work. Money might not buy you happiness, but poverty is generally worse.

Since you were offered an opportunity to have a good faith discussion multiple times and explicitly refused there would be no point in going in to a conversation about all the inaccurate assumptions you made in that comment.

If you would like to reverse your previous decision and engage in a good faith discussion, say that.

I personally will make any guarantee to do that up to and including signing a contract.
You still haven't owned up and apologized for the lies you've made about me, so...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 09:17:43 PM
The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.


A good faith conversation is one where by definition both parties assume the other person means what they say unless they can prove otherwise. You don't judge based on innuendo, guesses, vibes, or second-hand claims or even on "the balance of evidence"--you judge based only on hard proof. A good faith discussion means you assume the person means what they say unless you can prove they don't.

That's one of the things "Good faith conversation" means. Literally.

If you can't do that, you can't have a good faith conversation.

As for the rest:

But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending...

They have gone way beyond mere namecalling. They have accused me of specific things I objectively provably didn't do, including lying and not following my own suggestions as to what others should do.

These specific accusations have almost lead (and might actually lead) to suicide and have lead to massive being-unable-to-feed-family situations for multiple people.

Can you address that issue: that the false claims made here go way beyond mere namecaling?


Quote
Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.

See above for how you didn't. Please address them if you want to have a good faith discussion.
Zak, fully honest questions here and not trolling: Are you considering suicide right now? Are you in an unable-to-feed-family situation?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 09:21:10 PM
Zak, fully honest questions here and not trolling: Are you considering suicide right now? Are you in an unable-to-feed-family situation?

Your actions up until now have not made me trust you enough to have this conversation.

Again:

I am willing to enter into a formal agreement to have a good faith conversation--of any kind, with any kind of stakes for me i I break the agreement (since having a good faith conversation is not in any way a burden).

Since you have repeatedly, (three times now) been formally made this offer and you've refused to bite, I'd have to have no sense of self-preservation to trust you with a conversation like that with someone who apparently thinks it's an imposition or burden to make statements they stand behind.

I can't believe you'd think for a moment you could behave the way you have and then expect your victim to trust you like that.

I also am baffled by the fact that after all these years and after all that's happened in the RPG scene you don't understand that behaving like this has had massive real-world consequences for your victims
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 09:53:58 PM
The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.


A good faith conversation is one where by definition both parties assume the other person means what they say unless they can prove otherwise. You don't judge based on innuendo, guesses, vibes, or second-hand claims or even on "the balance of evidence"--you judge based only on hard proof. A good faith discussion means you assume the person means what they say unless you can prove they don't.

That's one of the things "Good faith conversation" means. Literally.

If you can't do that, you can't have a good faith conversation.

As for the rest:

But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending...

They have gone way beyond mere namecalling. They have accused me of specific things I objectively provably didn't do, including lying and not following my own suggestions as to what others should do.

These specific accusations have almost lead (and might actually lead) to suicide and have lead to massive being-unable-to-feed-family situations for multiple people.

Can you address that issue: that the false claims made here go way beyond mere namecaling?


Quote
Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.

See above for how you didn't. Please address them if you want to have a good faith discussion.

A) I'm alright with you 'not believing me'. I'm not going to dance through hoops for you or anyone and I don't think I can trust you either to have a respectful convo as per reasons given (multiple times). Especially after I tried to be open and honest with you (YMMV).

B) Eh? Is this a deliberate non-sequitur? Who knows...
Did I or did I not address this!? The Zak 'poo head' comment is to merely point out the difference between someone being a 'bit of a dick' on a forum and someone being an evil malicious bastard. For me there's a huge difference YMMV).

Copy and paste time me thinks for this second part:
"First off I've not read all 57 pages........... Point is, I've not seen all the accusations."

I never said that people didn't go beyond name-calling. But you seem to expect me to have seen everything on this 57 page thread. I have not and I've already said that!

"So yes, I would call someone out if I thought they were putting you into (or anyone) that type of space. It's the humanitarian thing to do..."

Seeing that wasn't good enough or somehow not absorbed. No one here should be actively trying to harm you to that level I'm referring to. Here or on any forum/platform. If they have they shouldn't.

That said... You've brought a certain level of ridicule directly onto yourself and some people are now just taking the piss. That is to say, I don't think they want to actively hurt you, but they do want to frustrate and mock you. Like Tubesock... That's his M.O. But I don't think he's doing it to be an 'evil bastard'. I've seen him on other threads and yeah, he gives it but also takes it.

As for your last point, I think I've addressed it above.

I think HDs is also trying to have a legit convo, but again it's the whole 'formal bullet point thingey'. Sigh...










Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 10:03:27 PM
A) I'm alright with you 'not believing me'. I'm not going to dance through hoops for you or anyone and I don't think I can trust you either to have a respectful convo as per reasons given (multiple times). Especially after I tried to be open and honest with you (YMMV).

I am unaware of unable provable transgression of good faith I've made.

If I made one, please point to a specific, verifiable example.

Quote
Did I or did I not address this!? The Zak 'poo head' comment is to merely point out the difference between someone being a 'bit of a dick' on a forum and someone being an evil malicious bastard. For me there's a huge difference YMMV).

Are you saying that there is "acceptable misinformation" and "unacceptable misinformation"?

Because the specific misinformation on this forum has been responsible for exactly the consequences you described as meaningful:

People being near suicide and being unable to feed their families.

Quote
I never said that people didn't go beyond name-calling. But you seem to expect me to have seen everything on this 57 page thread. I have not and I've already said that!

So, if I showed you a specific piece of misinformation I could prove occurred, would you address it?

Y/n?

Quote
That is to say, I don't think they want to actively hurt you, but they do want to frustrate and mock you. Like Tubesock... That's his M.O. But I don't think he's doing it to be an 'evil bastard'. I've seen him on other threads and yeah, he gives it but also takes it.

it doesn't matter what the motive is --the obvious consequence of spreading misinformation is that people believe it, act on it, and try to harm the victim.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 11:23:28 PM
A) I'm alright with you 'not believing me'. I'm not going to dance through hoops for you or anyone and I don't think I can trust you either to have a respectful convo as per reasons given (multiple times). Especially after I tried to be open and honest with you (YMMV).

I am unaware of unable provable transgression of good faith I've made.

If I made one, please point to a specific, verifiable example.

Quote
Did I or did I not address this!? The Zak 'poo head' comment is to merely point out the difference between someone being a 'bit of a dick' on a forum and someone being an evil malicious bastard. For me there's a huge difference YMMV).

Are you saying that there is "acceptable misinformation" and "unacceptable misinformation"?

Because the specific misinformation on this forum has been responsible for exactly the consequences you described as meaningful:

People being near suicide and being unable to feed their families.

Quote
I never said that people didn't go beyond name-calling. But you seem to expect me to have seen everything on this 57 page thread. I have not and I've already said that!

So, if I showed you a specific piece of misinformation I could prove occurred, would you address it?

Y/n?

Quote
That is to say, I don't think they want to actively hurt you, but they do want to frustrate and mock you. Like Tubesock... That's his M.O. But I don't think he's doing it to be an 'evil bastard'. I've seen him on other threads and yeah, he gives it but also takes it.

it doesn't matter what the motive is --the obvious consequence of spreading misinformation is that people believe it, act on it, and try to harm the victim.

I really should be drawing or making music... This is like a carousel. I'm not using the quote thingy because I always fuck it up.

A) With you being snarky and me being unable to determine if you're just mocking me I feel having a conversation with you is unattainable at this moment in time. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything this is not a court, and it's a statement like that indicates that you may be just be acting in bad faith. Can I prove it?? Absolutely not... I can't say what you are or not thinking.

B) Really? After everything I've said you say this:

"Are you saying that there is "acceptable misinformation" and "unacceptable misinformation"?"

Did I ever say that 'misinformation' was ever acceptable??? I don't think so... Are you deliberately not listening?
If someone calls me a "disingenuous twat" and a "cnut" (which happened not too long ago) that's hardly malicious is it? It's digital hot air... But was it a true statement? I think not, as I try my best to be honest (but I am fallible), but at the same time the other individual thought that it was probably true. Even if I didn't...

Incidentally, I did plenty of name-calling in that thread too. Did I want to hurt that person? Not at all, I was just angry. So was he... I have no ill will, and I will happily talk to him and have done. No harm done as far as I'm concerned. One or two others here (that I won't name) that I feel are malicious I have told them to fuck off and definitely won't play that game.

This is interesting... Again we are back at the Y/N binary answer. Would I address a troll that was posting material that WAS malicious and actively and deliberately trying to you harm (in the severe way I described?).

I would have no choice not to. It would be a decent thing to do as a humanist. I would do the same thing for anyone (in that dire situation). If I was a religious person I'd be thinking along the lines of the 12 commandments (I'm using that in a very broad sense). Now that said I'm not a crusader either. But I'd always be available to anyone (even if I didn't know them well) as a person they could talk to if they needed help (well, I'd strive to be).

That doesn't mean I don't throw mud around this forum at people, I do. But only those who I consider are bad for the hobby like the Censors, woke scolds, and corporate evil shits (or general a-holes, etc.).

Regarding someone like Tubesock Actually, I can't speak for TS but I think he may fall into this category (correct me if I'm wrong). Or other trolls, I've seen on RPG.net or whatever.

You must remember... from their perspective you (and others) are considered legitimate targets. To them they are doing the lord's work to keep you, Vegner, Pundit and GrimJim out of the hobby. They would see it as their duty. So as far as they are concerned they are the good guys - so by trolling you and the others and by using any means necessary it's 'fair' because they are after a certain effect. To have you (and the rest) pushed out completely (if possible). So by them telling lies it's okay because it is rooting out the big evils. The equivalent of a pious fraud... But it's for the 'good of the community'.

So they don't see themselves as trolls (maybe ethical trolls perhaps). So to them, their motivation is good, because you're bad. And anyone that associates with you is bad also.

So yes... they can (and do) certainly cause harm. I'm not disputing that. For me, it's completely illogical and not a good thing to do. But they feel they are doing the right thing. Personally, I like to deal with stuff I can prove (where possible).

Let me ask you this, tho'. You ask me all about what I would do, I think I've pretty much laid the cards on the table. Would you defend GJ, Venger or Pundit? If we are talking about victims surely GJ is one, which his crippling depression, right? Even if there were things about them that you don't agree with? A lot of lies have been spread about them too.






























 




Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 11:28:19 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 30, 2022, 11:33:59 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 11:35:24 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 30, 2022, 11:36:18 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

More than he deserves IMHO.

Edited to add:

It just occurred to me, maybe he's on the spectrum? Maybe it's not bad faith, he's just unable to read other people, even more than I am? I'm a highly functioning Aspie, maybe he's got a worst case?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 11:36:52 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

More than he deserves IMHO.

I appreciate that bro'.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 11:38:12 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

I asked you a direct question--

Here's that question again:

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?


---

If you want to claim to be "polite" or "speaking in good faith" or "genuine" or "not a troll" then do what anyone at a dinner table would do:

Answer the question.

Otherwise we can dispense with the hypothesis that you're acting in good faith. Because when people speak in good faith they answer questions.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 11:41:56 PM

Otherwise we can dispense with the hypothesis that you're acting in good faith. Because when people speak in good faith they answer questions.


Sure, tell the world that I'm a troll, fucker or whatever and that I've been working for Satan.

And this is why I no longer want to converse with him...



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on August 30, 2022, 11:43:05 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

I almost forgot.

Yes I do. Question answered!

Annnnd goodbye.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 30, 2022, 11:51:10 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

I almost forgot.

Yes I do. Question answered!

Annnnd goodbye.

Great, so, since you understand that I'm not talking about motive, we won't have to ever hear about that again.

You used the example above of someone calling you disingenuous while you claim you are not.

So, to be as accommodating as possible  I'll use that example:

That's a question with a real, genuine answer--either you are being disingenuous about something or you aren't. It isn't like "jerk" which is a matter of taste.

Now, someone may claim you are being disingenuous and believe it--but that doesn't matter that they believe it.

They either did all of the work necessary to prove this accusation was true before saying it out loud where it might influence others or they didn't.

If they did and are right: they are justified in saying it.

If they didn't even if they believe it is true: they are not. They are saying something with what they call in many jurisdictions "reckless disregard" for whether it's true.

1) An honest person checks whether a thing is true using every means they can before saying a false (negative) word about someone else.

2) And if they make a mistake, they apologize after.

Would you agree that these two things are true?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on August 31, 2022, 12:19:15 AM
Zak, fully honest questions here and not trolling: Are you considering suicide right now? Are you in an unable-to-feed-family situation?

Your actions up until now have not made me trust you enough to have this conversation.

Again:

I am willing to enter into a formal agreement to have a good faith conversation--of any kind, with any kind of stakes for me i I break the agreement (since having a good faith conversation is not in any way a burden).

Since you have repeatedly, (three times now) been formally made this offer and you've refused to bite, I'd have to have no sense of self-preservation to trust you with a conversation like that with someone who apparently thinks it's an imposition or burden to make statements they stand behind.

I can't believe you'd think for a moment you could behave the way you have and then expect your victim to trust you like that.

I also am baffled by the fact that after all these years and after all that's happened in the RPG scene you don't understand that behaving like this has had massive real-world consequences for your victims
It's totally fine if you don't want to trust me. That said, get some help from someone you trust, whoever that might be.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 31, 2022, 10:30:33 AM
Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you.  In the 58 pages of this thread (and counting) I have pointed out multiple times where you're being an asshole.  Your sidebar with Rob Necronomicon about whether you're REALLY disingenuous or EVERYONE THINGS YOU'RE DISINGENUOUS but in your secret heart of hearts you KNOW you're not is really telling.  You really are insisting that people should not trust their own perceptions regarding other peoples' motives because contrary to all available evidence, they might actually be mistaken.

You are an asshole because that is what you are advocating.  Do you not see that? That's not 'avoiding misinformation'.  That's YOU printing a LICENSE to be an ASSHOLE while simultaneously DISMISSING THEIR PERCEPTION OF REALITY.  That's also called gaslighting, and something that I  KNOW you've been accused of by others.  Now, if I know you REGULARLY exhibit a specific behavior in my dealings with you, and someone else says that they have seen that specific behavior when they deal with you, obviously I'm inclined to believe them.  Most people are 'consistent' - if you're a generally good person you're going to do generally good things, and if you suddenly do something 'bad' people will say 'that doesn't seem like something he would do'.  There are times when someone has told me about something bad someone I know has done and I've been skeptical - that's not the kind of thing they normally do, and if it's true, you'd expect some additional context that might be missing.  I'll usually make a point of saying something like 'if that's true, that's really concerning'.  On the other hand if someone is accused of something that is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR BEHAVIOR, even if it is a 'he said/she said' or 'he said/they said' or whatever pronoun you favor in this hypothetical, I'm going to be inclined to believe the accusation.  That doesn't mean that I'll spread it as true - as you say, that MIGHT be irresponsible.  In the cases where it is relevant I may share with the caveat that it is not something I have proof of, but that it is something concerning enough that someone should watch out for it. 

But all of this talk about 'spreading misinformation' is sleight of hand, asshole.  For someone to be guilty of spreading misinformation, the information they're spreading must be false.  Now, you're trying to simultaneously make the claim that if they aren't 100% certain and/or haven't done what you consider SOLELY IN YOUR OWN DISCRETION to be appropriate 'fact-checking', that sharing that information is automatically irresponsible and should simultaneously count as misinformation. 

Well, asshole, you don't get to decide unilaterally what is the appropriate standard of evidence.  You'd be well within your rights to say something like 'I think deadDMwalking is being grossly unfair when he calls me an asshole because I've ONLY EVER BEEN POLITE AND RESPECTFUL' and you'd be lying, but at least people would be clear about where we disagree.  Of course, that's never been your claim, has it?  Instead your claim is 'I've been mean to deadDMwalking, but he was mean first and therefore HE DESERVES IT'.  Well, Zak, if it's a question of 'deserve', I definitely think that you do deserve it.  When I respond to you in the same way that you respond to me (mirroring) or lay out detailed reasons why I think your behavior makes you an asshole, I'm doing it because I think that you're a slimy piece of excrement and your favorite tactic is to pretend that you don't have a hidden agenda,  that your different standards of evidence for yourself versus those that disagree with you are completely reasonable, and that you can ALWAYS place the burden of PROVING BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT even things people have seen with their own eyes while never doing the same.  In short, there's no point in having a conversation with you - you are the definition of a bad faith actor.   

And this being the internet, there's always someone new who will be meeting you for the first time.  And while I think they deserve to make up their own mind, since these patterns of behavior I've held up for your review over and over again are likely to come up, people ought to be aware.  I am witness to a 'bajillion' (or at least 10) people engaging you in good faith, beginning to recognize your bullshit, try to call you on your bullshit, then watch you spaz out and start spamming some off-tangent shit like 'POST  518'. 

So yes, I think you're an asshole.  I'm fine with admitting that my definition of asshole is entirely subjective, and I admit that there's room for people to disagree.  But I don't think my definition is so unusual that people are not better served hearing my opinion of you. 

And you should feel very special, Zak.  I have met a lot of people online, and this being the internet, there have been a bajillion assholes (or at least 10).  You're the only one that I feel deserves the special consideration of being called out in advance for anyone engaging in a conversation with you.  We're not at the point where I'm digitally following you around the internet to proactively warn everyone that you might encounter (and I would consider that harassment).  But for the places that I have even a shred of respect for the other posters, I feel that my efforts to warn everyone about exactly the behaviors you've demonstrated in this thread OVER AND OVER AND OVER are worthwhile. 

Dealing with you is exhausting.  I know a lot of people who enjoy a friendly disagreement (like arguing whether Superman or Batman is the better superhero).  'Debating' with you is like arguing with a 4-year-old with his fingers in his ears screaming 'nuh-uh, nuh-uh, to infinity', at least that's how it always ends, and after seeing so many people say, "Zak, I'm tired of arguing with you, it's just not worth it", it's VITAL to warn people.  The one resource we all have a finite amount of is time.  When people spend 3 days or 3 weeks arguing with you, jumping through hoops, posting quotes and detailed research and watching you just pretend they didn't, throwing both casual and deeply personal insults at anyone that suggests that dealing with you was ANYTHING LESS THAN THE HIGHPOINT OF THEIR LIFE, just to say 'I wish I could have that time back', well, it'd be UNETHICAL not to try to warn people.  Even if their experience happens to be different (one can hope), the right thing to do is give them a heads up.  Some people ARE NOT WORTH DEALING WITH. 

And Zak, in my mind that's the worst thing I could say about a person.  I believe just everyone is worth talking to, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE, maybe even ESPECIALLY IF YOU DISAGREE.  I can't think of a single other person in the world that I am willing to say 'that person is just not worth it'.  It's a VERY LOW BAR and you are literally the only person in the world that I can think of that has failed to clear it. 

And Zak, while I believe that warning others about you is worthwhile (even though I know that most people will realize quickly enough because I think most people are rather smart about who they choose to spend time with), I also have the tiniest shred of hope that you'll stop for a moment and ask yourself seriously, "Is there any chance that dDMw is right, and that I am an asshole"?  Because being an asshole is about BEHAVIOR and NOT PERSONALITY.  You can be a narcissist and avoid being an asshole - it's HARDER - but you can do it.  But in order to not be an asshole you have to be able to recognize when you're doing it and make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to act differently.  I don't think you can change easily or quickly, but I do believe that if you wanted to, you could change.  If you did (based entirely on my subjective judgement of your actions), I would HAPPILY stop warning people against you. 

Personally, I see the time I've spent talking to and about you as a 'duty' - something that I do to help others.  If I didn't have that duty or obligation, I could spend that time doing things that fall more in the hedonistic category - reading a book, spending time working on my foreign language, or watching a western on TV.  But since those are for my own benefit (ie, selfish), I'm willing to accept a little personal sacrifice in service to my fellow man - at least, as I see it. 

So, we're on page 58.  Here's me calling you an asshole.  'Til the next page, this is me signing off and wishing you all the best (including recognizing you're an asshole and making changes to the way you interact with others). 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 31, 2022, 12:34:37 PM
Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

You've tried to excuse not being responsible for your claims by saying I broke faith first. So it's your work to prove that.

You can think what you want, but the second you open your mouth and claim publicly that a human did a bad thing, you now have to do the work.

Anything less is not ok and this idea about burden of proof goes back to pretty much the invention of rational debate and the people who wrote the law in every major country where english-language RPG discussion happens agrees with that idea and they wrote their defamation laws in accordance with that principle. If you are disagreeing with that standard of proof--take it up with the entire history of western culture.

No-one can be like "Ok you have a license to treat other people like shit based on your mystery evidence".
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 31, 2022, 03:27:13 PM
Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

Zak, that's your rule, not mine. I don't need to prove that you're an asshole.  Likewise, I don't have to PROVE to anyone, least of all you, that my accusation is true.  I'm absolutely satisfied with the proposition that they can make an evaluation of me and my stated motives, and you, and your stated motives, and come to their own decision. Further, a specific 'initial incident' is immaterial to whether you act as an asshole now.  Likewise, if you felt that I, uniquely, deserved to be treated as an asshole (which you have not said), that would not excuse your behavior to other people in this thread that easily qualifies as an asshole.  You can PRETEND that every single person that you've been an asshole to deserved it, but I know better.  The reasons I think you're an asshole, the specific behaviors I've called you out for - those are well documented in this very thread

You've tried to excuse not being responsible for your claims by saying I broke faith first. So it's your work to prove that.

I don't like it when you say that someone didn't address every single aspect of your post therefore they've walked away from the dinner table and/or therefore don't deserve any more engagement.  To be very clear, I am not claiming that you broke faith first.  I think I could make that claim, but I don't need to.  What is important is that I am asserting that I have seen you be an asshole to myself and others in times and places that I don't think made sense.  Like many other posters here, it's possible for me to butt heads with a poster in one conversation and it is a non-issue in EVERY OTHER CONVERSATION WE HAVE.  Sometimes people end up in ridiculous positions in one conversation, but they're in a much more reasonable position in another conversation.  YOU ARE SPECIAL in that you have repeatedly proven INCAPABLE of changing your behavior; not only are you ALWAYS RIDICULOUS, your asinine demands regarding permissible structure for a conversation are CRAZY, and when I refuse to play along it is because I'm acting in good-faith, unlike you, you crazy asshole. 

You can think what you want, but the second you open your mouth and claim publicly that a human did a bad thing, you now have to do the work.

No, that's your rule, Zak, not mine. And I take umbrage with me making the claim that 'you did a bad thing'.  You treat people badly, like an asshole, would, and I propose that the reason is because you're an asshole.  But I don't think that treating people badly is 'doing a bad thing'.  It COULD be. It OFTEN is.  But I'm not without the ability to self-reflect.  If calling someone names was a bad thing, I'd be doing a bad thing.  I assert that when I call you an asshole, I'm doing a good thing.  I further assert that when you call people names, I THINK IT IS BAD, because your apparent motives are entirely self-serving.  I'm making inferences, and unlike you, asshole, I don't think I'm perfect or incapable of making mistakes.  BUT, in your case, I feel that you've provided sufficient evidence in this thread.  Are you making the claim that you haven't engaged in name-calling?  If you're not making that claim, I consider the truth sufficiently demonstrated.  If you do want to state explicitly that you don't engage in name-calling, I am willing to provide at LEAST 3 examples (again) where you have. 


Anything less is not ok and this idea about burden of proof goes back to pretty much the invention of rational debate and the people who wrote the law in every major country where english-language RPG discussion happens agrees with that idea and they wrote their defamation laws in accordance with that principle. If you are disagreeing with that standard of proof--take it up with the entire history of western culture.

Blah blah blah.  Zak, you're not capable of 'rational debate'. You gish-gallop, you move your goal posts more often than you MAKE POSTS.  Like seriously, you will move your goal-posts IN THE SAME POST.  Of course, you continually deny that you've EVER changed your position or standards of evidence.  REPEATEDLY you claim that if two of your statements that appear CONTRADICTARY it is because you're not an expert in communicating to idiots, so you claim it is your audience's job to discretely and politely contact you, ask dozens or hundreds of clarifying questions, and only after you've agreed that  you're full of shit (which you will never do) should they point out that you're full of shit. Like an asshole. 

No-one can be like "Ok you have a license to treat other people like shit based on your mystery evidence".

I don't need a license to treat you the way I do. People are free to make the determination that I'm treating you unfairly. If ANYONE wants to claim that I've treated you unfairly, I'm happy to engage with them on why I think you're an asshole (again, because I've already done it for you).  I don't want to spam 'see post xxx', but I could.  Likewise, I don't expect people to read all 58 pages of this thread.  If someone did say, "I'm new to this conversation, can you provide a short summary with supporting quotes", I think that's something I could provide.  Ultimately, I expect people to use their powers of discernment to evaluate my statements and supporting evidence against your statements and supporting evidence and come to a decision about who is right and who is wrong.  Since you're familiar with juries, this is effectively the same thing. 

I will admit to the slightest frustration that you CONTINUALLY dismiss evidence that has been provided as 'never provided'.  That makes you a liar, and again means that you hold yourself to a different standard than anyone else.  It's one of the MANY reasons I think you're an asshole.  But I'm only slightly frustrated.  You're a slimy piece of shit, Zak, and you have no moral standards and all of your claims to fairness or truth are performative and are not representative of your ACTIONS. 

And that's not always obvious when you first engage in a conversation.  And people deserve to be warned before they waste their time on you. 

And it's okay that you don't agree with me.  Like I've said before, I believe you are a narcissist, and you are truly incapable of the level of self-reflection it would require to stop being an asshole.  But maybe if you hear the same thing from enough people enough times, you can change?  Maybe? 

For your sake, I hope so. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 31, 2022, 03:46:57 PM
Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

Zak, that's your rule, not mine.

As I already said, that rule is not mine.

It precedes me by thousands of years

https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/#:~:text=The%20burden%20of%20proof%20fallacy%20is%20a%20logical%20fallacy%20that,shifting%20it%20to%20someone%20else.

Quote
Likewise, if you felt that I, uniquely, deserved to be treated as an asshole (which you have not said), that would not excuse your behavior to other people in this thread that easily qualifies as an asshole.
Quote
You gish-gallop, you move your goal posts more often than you MAKE POSTS.

If you're saying I did something bad in this thread, you, again, can't point to it.

Your troll code of refusing to provide support means you are, by definition, always wrong--at least to any rational observer.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on August 31, 2022, 06:44:35 PM
"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 31, 2022, 06:47:43 PM
"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 07:02:41 PM
"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 07:06:07 PM
"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 31, 2022, 07:10:15 PM
"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

Not at all.

Although I don't have asperger's I am going to (continue to) type very clearly and without any of the collquial flourishes that would characterize casual speech in order to avoid confusion on the part of third parties who might be reading:

These are two trolls. They are separate.

Deaddmwalking is saying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is "Zak's rule".

A different troll name Tubesock something is implying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is from thousands of years ago,

These two trolls attempting to dogpile the same target (like you are) disagree with each other.

I hope that this very simple and aspergers-esque explanation clears up any confusion your trolling has caused.

You won't acknowledge that what you posted was inaccurate, which proves that you are dishonest and not acting in good faith.

This makes this little episode super convenient:

Two trolls defending the idea of posting logical fallacies and then a third lying (provably) about what I said in a venue where it can be checked. All in the space of this one page.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on August 31, 2022, 07:16:10 PM
No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Quote
Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.
Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 08:12:31 PM
"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

Not at all.

Although I don't have asperger's I am going to (continue to) type very clearly and without any of the collquial flourishes that would characterize casual speech in order to avoid confusion on the part of third parties who might be reading:

These are two trolls. They are separate.

Deaddmwalking is saying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is "Zak's rule".

A different troll name Tubesock something is implying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is from thousands of years ago,

These two trolls attempting to dogpile the same target (like you are) disagree with each other.

I hope that this very simple and aspergers-esque explanation clears up any confusion your trolling has caused.

You won't acknowledge that what you posted was inaccurate, which proves that you are dishonest and not acting in good faith.

This makes this little episode super convenient:

Two trolls defending the idea of posting logical fallacies and then a third lying (provably) about what I said in a venue where it can be checked. All in the space of this one page.

Here you are doubling down on conflating the two, while demanding I aknowledge I'm in the wrong for calling you out on doing so...

Very convenient indeed.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 08:15:50 PM
No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Quote
Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.
Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

I never agreed with them on that, only your deranged brain could interpret me calling you out for conflating them with agreement.

Who cares about what he said? Where in my post do I even get close to saying ANYTHING about him?

Again, only your deranged brain could see what's clearly not there.

IMHO you have some mental issues, I implore you to search help.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 08:19:11 PM
No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Quote
Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.
Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

I never agreed with them on that, only your deranged brain could interpret me calling you out for conflating them with agreement.

Who cares about what he said? Where in my post do I even get close to saying ANYTHING about him?

Again, only your deranged brain could see what's clearly not there.

IMHO you have some mental issues, I implore you to search help.

I forgot to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a troll, so go fuck yourself.

FYI Troll: Someone who says things he/she doesn't really believe to get a reaction of others.

So, unlesss you're claiming I don't believe what you're quoting me saying you're clearly lying about me.

Will you apologize as per your own rule?

Or will you just keep on sperging out?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 31, 2022, 08:45:02 PM
The S. in Zak S. is for Sperging.  Zak Sperging. 

This is not a comment that I wish to provide proof for. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 09:17:34 PM
The S. in Zak S. is for Sperging.  Zak Sperging. 

This is not a comment that I wish to provide proof for.

"Post 518"
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 06:25:34 AM

I forgot to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a troll,
Quote
Again, only your deranged brain...
Quote
sperging

Obviously only a troll would talk like this.

The S. in Zak S. is for Sperging.  Zak Sperging. 
This is not a comment that I wish to provide proof for.

Or like this.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: blackstone on September 01, 2022, 07:45:55 AM
59 pages of Zak's narcissism.

Wow. Just, wow.

Dude, you need help.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 07:50:38 AM
59 pages of Zak's narcissism.

Wow. Just, wow.

Dude, you need help.

"You fact-checked misinformation therefore you are a narcissist" doesn't really follow.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 01, 2022, 09:13:32 AM
Are you making the claim that you haven't engaged in name-calling?

Zak, you're doing that thing where you ignore questions.  Above is a direct question aimed at you that you have chosen to ignore.  Failure to answer will be proof that you're acting in bad faith and you're a troll. 

Regarding Burden of Proof, what you ALWAYS CONVENIENTLY IGNORE, asshole is that different claims have different burdens of proof.  Trying to claim that I have not supported my accusation that you're an asshole are patently false.  When I refuse to quote myself showing that I have provided evidence in support of my claims it is because you are not the sole judge, asshole.  You have made it VERY CLEAR that there is no standard of evidence that you would accept to prove that you're an asshole, because you think the preposition is false, therefore any supporting argument is either a lie or a misunderstanding.  Your insistence to that is one of the major reasons I keep calling you an asshole

You say I haven't PROVEN you're an asshole.  I say I have.  You demand that I meet some unstated standard is not the same as 'not providing evidence. 

And you're very obviously trying to exploit the claim 'burden of proof is on the accuser'.  This is part of your pattern of behavior where you latch on something that seems so reasonable, but you understand it so poorly that I'm forced to laugh at how smart you think you are. In court, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no other reasonable explanation fits the evidence.  That is not to say that 'I have proven this and there is a mountain of incontrovertible facts that cannot be misconstrued including direct video, eye-witness testimony, a freely given signed confession, physical evidence of the crime matching only the defendant, etc.  Most cases are decided on circumstantial evidence. 

When I present instances where you've been an asshole over and over and over and over again it's possible and in fact plausible that any individual instance is not direct proof.  Maybe some days you forget to take your medicine or someone kicked your dog and you're angry and you vent in the wrong place.  We're all human - we all act like a jerk SOMETIMES - and most people will forgive you for that (especially if you apologize).  But when the behavior happens OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN and we run out of excuses (how many dogs do you have and how often do they kicked?) the only 'reasonable' explanation is that you're an asshole. 

So I accept that I have to provide evidence that you're an asshole.  I've done it.  I don't care to repost all my detailed explanations because that's just one more example of you being an asshole.  Over these 60 pages I've made the claim many times.  The first time was Reply #387, page 26 (for the convenience of people joining this thread almost 40 pages later. 

Beginning with Reply #468 and #476, page 32 I really drilled down in to the specific behaviors that I observe from you and I describe as making you an asshole

I stand by these and my additional comments (including this one).  If anyone reading this doesn't think that Zak S is an asshole, I encourage you to read a couple of those posts (along with his responses) because the proof is there. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on September 01, 2022, 10:34:24 AM
No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Quote
Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.
Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

I never agreed with them on that, only your deranged brain could interpret me calling you out for conflating them with agreement.

Who cares about what he said? Where in my post do I even get close to saying ANYTHING about him?

Again, only your deranged brain could see what's clearly not there.

IMHO you have some mental issues, I implore you to search help.
I decided to drop out of responding to him simply on the chance he has some acute issues he needs to work out. Shit-flinging can be fun, but he's alluded to some potential real behavioral health issues of his that I'd rather not inflame.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 01, 2022, 10:49:57 AM
I decided to drop out of responding to him simply on the chance he has some acute issues he needs to work out. Shit-flinging can be fun, but he's alluded to some potential real behavioral health issues of his that I'd rather not inflame.

This is it for me as well... I don't think he seems like a particularly friendly individual (or that's how he comes across to me). But yeah... I don't think everything is 'quite right' and I don't particularly want to see things get any worse for him.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 11:43:21 AM
I decided to drop out of responding to him simply on the chance he has some acute issues he needs to work out. Shit-flinging can be fun, but he's alluded to some potential real behavioral health issues of his that I'd rather not inflame.

This is it for me as well... I don't think he seems like a particularly friendly individual (or that's how he comes across to me). But yeah... I don't think everything is 'quite right' and I don't particularly want to see things get any worse for him.

Ditto, guy's clearly not well, and I don't want to have the charge of conscience that maybe I pushed him to something.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on September 01, 2022, 02:26:13 PM
Same. Basically, there's no getting through to Zak, and I knew this going in. My only real aim was to allow him enough leeway to expose himself, so that anyone who runs across this thread will have plenty of information with which to form an opinion about him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 03:17:44 PM


Zak, you're doing that thing where you ignore questions.  Above is a direct question aimed at you that you have chosen to ignore.  Failure to answer will be proof that you're acting in bad faith and you're a troll. 

Nope.

You began the conversation with a personal attack:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/375/

So, that's a first-strike personal attack. I don't need to consider your claims or address them. No one does. You're a troll.

Now you do claim I broke faith first, justifying your trolling behavior, but when asked for proof of this accusation you didn't give them, in post 870 above.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 03:25:25 PM
And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is exactly what happened to me in this very thread as well. For years I defended Zak, including in this thread.

But the moment I mentioned he's coming across as an asshole and it would be more persuasive if he chose a different approach, suddenly I was a troll.

Sometimes I wonder if Zak is on the Spectrum and is unaware that he's on the Spectrum and that would explain a lot of his behavior. But then he didn't used to be this way. Prior issues aside, he didn't used to take the world literally like this, and be this unable to read rooms and tone, unable to read body language and unspoken meaning and approaches, unable to judge the meaningful differences between levels of wrongdoing, unable to see bad behavior in himself, etc..

And it's not like you "become" on the Spectrum as an adult over time, as far as I am aware.

Which leads me to a different conclusion: that this is intentional behavior and he either:

A) knows the impact it's having and knows what it looks like and thinks it's a good idea despite that, or else

B) he suffers from some ailment which makes it difficult for him to know those things which he didn't have as much difficulty understanding years ago. Which would imply different issues than being on the Spectrum which can happen to a person over time or even suddenly.

There of course could be a C I have not considered.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 03:27:08 PM
As for the rest of y'all the situation is simple:

You are a hatemob spreading misinformation on the internet about an innocent person whose life was fucked over by the exact misinformation you are spreading on the internet.

The danger is simply this: people believed the exact false claims you're making and acted on them.

You can't pretend to be concerned for your victim without admitting the problem was caused by the thing you did in this thread.

If you have a genuine concern and aren't concern-trolling, then the thing to do is: review your previous claims, look at all the ones you made without proof, apologize for them, admit they weren't true, and do your best to make sure that everyone who read them knows that.

Then seek therapy for the fact that you trolled people on the internet over RPG drama, which is something nobody mentally well would do.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 03:29:29 PM


But the moment I mentioned he's coming across as an asshole and it would be more persuasive if he chose a different approach, suddenly I was a troll.

No you were a troll because of a specific argument you made, which you eventually articulated like this:

You said that it was ok to spread misinformation on the internet in order to "vent".

That's something only a troll would say and is incredibly fucked up. You also fled from the conversation about it when you got caught--which only a troll would do. An honest person would defend their idea if they believed it--that's a good faith conversation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 03:31:40 PM
Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

More than he deserves IMHO.

Edited to add:

It just occurred to me, maybe he's on the spectrum? Maybe it's not bad faith, he's just unable to read other people, even more than I am? I'm a highly functioning Aspie, maybe he's got a worst case?

Had not seen this comment before I made mine. You would know better than me but interesting we both thought the same thing. I was even going to add "We should ask GeekyBugle."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 03:34:29 PM
Had not seen this comment before I made mine. You would know better than me but interesting we both thought the same thing.

Also if you genuinely thought someone who'd been involved in three years of legal battles was on the spectrum or had any kind of mental health issue you could just ask for any documents about it.

But that would actually resolve the issue rather than allow you to troll which a troll would not want to do.

You want to type things to your fellow trolls to make them like you, and the rest is theatre.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 03:34:42 PM
And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is exactly what happened to me in this very thread as well. For years I defended Zak, including in this thread.

But the moment I mentioned he's coming across as an asshole and it would be more persuasive if he chose a different approach, suddenly I was a troll.

Sometimes I wonder if Zak is on the Spectrum and is unaware that he's on the Spectrum and that would explain a lot of his behavior. But then he didn't used to be this way. Prior issues aside, he didn't used to take the world literally like this, and be this unable to read rooms and tone, unable to read body language and unspoken meaning and approaches, unable to judge the meaningful differences between levels of wrongdoing, unable to see bad behavior in himself, etc..

And it's not like you "become" on the Spectrum as an adult over time, as far as I am aware.

Which leads me to a different conclusion: that this is intentional behavior and he either:

A) knows the impact it's having and knows what it looks like and thinks it's a good idea despite that, or else

B) he suffers from some ailment which makes it difficult for him to know those things which he didn't have as much difficulty understanding years ago. Which would imply different issues than being on the Spectrum which can happen to a person over time or even suddenly.

There of course could be a C I have not considered.

You're either born on the spectrum or you're not, you could not be diagnosed as a child (happened to me, yay socialized medicine!).

If what you say is true and he wasn't always like this then it's something else, drugs, some psychosis, or just plain assholery.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 03:36:36 PM
If what you say is true and he wasn't always like this then it's something else, drugs, some psychosis, or just plain assholery.

Your claims have to be ignored, this has already been proved. These are things you already said and prove you're just a troll:

Quote

I forgot to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a troll,
Quote
Quote
Again, only your deranged brain...
Quote
sperging
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 03:43:56 PM


But the moment I mentioned he's coming across as an asshole and it would be more persuasive if he chose a different approach, suddenly I was a troll.

No you were a troll because of a specific argument you made, which you eventually articulated like this:

You said that it was ok to spread misinformation on the internet in order to "vent".

I don't recall making my own value judgement about it and saying it was "OK" from my perspective. 

If you care to support your allegation then do so.

Quote
That's something only a troll would say and is incredibly fucked up. You also fled from the conversation about it when you got caught--which only a troll would do. An honest person would defend their idea if they believed it--that's a good faith conversation.

No Zak, you started to behave badly towards me, and when I tried to talk to you about it you kept doubling down. Honest healthy people walk away when they're abused.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 03:46:09 PM
Just a handy resume/compilation for others to see and judge for themselves.

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

Not at all.

Although I don't have asperger's I am going to (continue to) type very clearly and without any of the collquial flourishes that would characterize casual speech in order to avoid confusion on the part of third parties who might be reading:

These are two trolls. They are separate.

Deaddmwalking is saying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is "Zak's rule".

A different troll name Tubesock something is implying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is from thousands of years ago,

These two trolls attempting to dogpile the same target (like you are) disagree with each other.

I hope that this very simple and aspergers-esque explanation clears up any confusion your trolling has caused.

You won't acknowledge that what you posted was inaccurate, which proves that you are dishonest and not acting in good faith.

This makes this little episode super convenient:

Two trolls defending the idea of posting logical fallacies and then a third lying (provably) about what I said in a venue where it can be checked. All in the space of this one page.

Here you are doubling down on conflating the two, while demanding I aknowledge I'm in the wrong for calling you out on doing so...

Very convenient indeed.

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Quote
Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.
Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

I never agreed with them on that, only your deranged brain could interpret me calling you out for conflating them with agreement.

Who cares about what he said? Where in my post do I even get close to saying ANYTHING about him?

Again, only your deranged brain could see what's clearly not there.

IMHO you have some mental issues, I implore you to search help.

I forgot to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a troll, so go fuck yourself.

FYI Troll: Someone who says things he/she doesn't really believe to get a reaction of others.

So, unlesss you're claiming I don't believe what you're quoting me saying you're clearly lying about me.

Will you apologize as per your own rule?

Or will you just keep on sperging out?

My money is on sperging out. But I'm done answering to him, the guy clearly has some mental issues, probably persecution complex.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 03:48:58 PM
Had not seen this comment before I made mine. You would know better than me but interesting we both thought the same thing.

Also if you genuinely thought someone who'd been involved in three years of legal battles was on the spectrum or had any kind of mental health issue you could just ask for any documents about it.

But that would actually resolve the issue rather than allow you to troll which a troll would not want to do.

You want to type things to your fellow trolls to make them like you, and the rest is theatre.

I literally just started to realize the issue might be a factor. And as you're still being, from my perspective, abusive towards me I didn't think it was either wise or productive to ask you.

And nobody, and I mean NOBODY participating or reading this conversation could conceivable honestly be under the impression I am trying to curry favor with this crowd. Not if they know anything about my history here and relationship with others here. You either are unaware of that history and series of relationships (which I think is the most likely explanation for drawing such an absurd conclusion) or lying about it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 03:50:25 PM


But the moment I mentioned he's coming across as an asshole and it would be more persuasive if he chose a different approach, suddenly I was a troll.

No you were a troll because of a specific argument you made, which you eventually articulated like this:

You said that it was ok to spread misinformation on the internet in order to "vent".

I don't recall making my own value judgement about it and saying it was "OK" from my perspective. 

Ok, i you are trying to clarify that, I will --because I am acting in good faith--assume you mean it. So can you answer the question:

If that doesn't make it ok, then why did you defend people spreading misinformation and try to give me "advice" not to fact-check it?

Now, some people said, basically, "Don't fact-check misinformation because it makes you look bad to people who worry about tone"--and I clarified they're not my target audience.

So--keeping that goal in mind (ie, I am not trying to get people who worry about tone over fact on my side):

Why are you asking me to not to fact-check the misinformation being spread here?
Quote

No Zak, you started to behave badly towards me, and when I tried to talk to you about it you kept doubling down. Honest healthy people walk away when they're abused.

Burden of proof is on the accuser. If you are claiming I "abused" you--where's the proof? That's a massive piece of defamation right there.

As far as anyone reading the thread can see--you fled simply because you made a false claim and got caught.

(EDIT: Sorry, misspoke, what I meant was: "As far as anyone reasonable who might read this thread can see." If anyone was misled by this and acted on it, let me know.)

Here's our last exchange:
https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/420/

If you think you were misrepresented--then clarify?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 04:32:44 PM


But the moment I mentioned he's coming across as an asshole and it would be more persuasive if he chose a different approach, suddenly I was a troll.

No you were a troll because of a specific argument you made, which you eventually articulated like this:

You said that it was ok to spread misinformation on the internet in order to "vent".

I don't recall making my own value judgement about it and saying it was "OK" from my perspective. 

Ok, i you are trying to clarify that, I will --because I am acting in good faith--assume you mean it. So can you answer the question:

No, stop there please. You accused me of something. I denied it and asked for proof. Are you going to provide proof, or are you saying this was entirely based on your personal assumptions and you never asked me to clarify to verify those assumptions and then intentionally treated me poorly based on those unclarified assumptions?

Because my recollection of our conversation was that you asked what possible benefit could come from people doing that. Not an on-balanced cost benefit analysis where one could draw a conclusion as to what the overall cost or benefit of doing that would be and make a judgement as to whether it was overall "good" or "bad" behavior, nor was it a question about what my personal judgement was about the behavior overall, but just me answering a question about what possible benefits could come from it.

Now if you think I said something different than that, let's see it.

Quote
If that doesn't make it ok, then why did you defend people spreading misinformation and try to give me "advice" not to fact-check it?

That's two different issues. The first I deny. I don't recall "defending" people spreading misinformation. I recall offering you a possible alternative explanation for why people might behave that way which was different from your explanation. That's not a defense. But again, if you disagree with that assessment, show me proof I "defended" people.

The second part about giving you advice I stand by, and you obviously don't want to take that advice. It remains: because the harm you are causing to yourself well exceeds the likely benefits from this behavior. Because, whether you see it or not (and it seems like you don't see it) you're coming across in a manner which looks bad for you, and I don't mean to the people actively participating in this thread (though you had allies among some users that you've now lost) but to the reasonable person from outside this message board which might read it now or in the future. And the level of "looking bad" is worse for you than the potential "proving truth" you might get from it, because the issues you're focusing on are mostly meaningless in terms of relevant "truths" which could help you. Because when you look this bad, your credibility suffers so much that people won't believe you when you tell the truth, or care about you enough to want to award you for telling the truth or revealing truth. And this is a very meaningful component of not just our society, but of our legal system. All of which is far more subjective than I think you'd like it to be.

Quote
Now, some people said, basically, "Don't fact-check misinformation because it makes you look bad to people who worry about tone"--and I clarified they're not my target audience.

So--keeping that goal in mind (ie, I am not trying to get people who worry about tone over fact on my side):

Why are you asking me to not to fact-check the misinformation being spread here?

IF it's actually misinformation which is highly relevant to your legal matters, you should fact check it. 90% of what you're "fact checking" here is not relevant and is almost entirely meaningless to anything in your life. And the method you've chosen to fact check it makes you look terrible. And the fact you appear to be unable to discern just how terrible it looks is adding additional damage to your credibility. And you looking bad IS RELEVANT to your life, even if you are not seeing it. Particularly because you're not seeing it. And again, I don't mean you're looking bad to people posting here: I mean as a reasonable-person standard you're looking bad due to the approach you're taking and apparent unwillingness or inability to appreciate how you look to an outsider.

Quote
As far as anyone reading the thread can see--you fled simply because you made a false claim and got caught.

Proof anyone other than you views it that way?

[Edit: I felt abused by you. I am not alleging abuse in a legal or even moral sense. I am saying I felt abused and walked away, and that it's absolutely a rational and mature thing for an adult to walk away when they feel abused, even if they cannot provide objective proof to someone else that they were abused.]
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 04:48:48 PM
No, stop there please. You accused me of something. I denied it and asked for proof. Are you going to provide proof, or are you saying this was entirely based on your personal assumptions and you never asked me to clarify to verify those assumptions and then intentionally treated me poorly based on those unclarified assumptions?

Neither: I asked for clarification.

You can either provide it or admit you're acting in bad faith.

Quote
That's two different issues. The first I deny. I don't recall "defending" people spreading misinformation.

You told me not to call them out and you made personal attacks on me for calling them out. This implies necessarily that:

It is not good to call them out.

That's defending them. That is asking the person who is exposing them not to.

If you'd like to say that definition of "Defend" is unacceptable to you, then, ok, we're just arguing about the word instead of about the substance of what happened. That's not important: we agree on what happened--you said I shouldn't do the right thing.

Quote
I recall offering you a possible alternative explanation for why people might behave that way which was different from your explanation.

None of what I said is about why.

You are talking about why people do hatemob shit and troling. I am talking about --regardless fo why--what is morally right to do about it. Their motives for spreading misinformation aren't that important--what's important is that they be fact-checked and (blue sky situation) they seek therapy for whatever causes them to do it.

Quote
The second part about giving you advice I stand by, and you obviously don't want to take that advice. It remains: because the harm you are causing to yourself well exceeds the likely benefits from this behavior.

I have to do the right thing even if it harms me personally.

Quote
Because, whether you see it or not (and it seems like you don't see it) you're coming across in a manner which looks bad for you, and I don't mean to the people actively participating in this thread (though you had allies among some users that you've now lost) but to the reasonable person from outside this message board which might read it now or in the future.

Whether or not they are the majority--literally no reasonable person would agree.

A reasonable person would go "Ok people spread misinformation, it is super-good that someone pointed out is was misinformation"

Only an unreasonable person would go "When trolls spread misinformation, that should be allowed"

Quote
IF it's actually misinformation which is highly relevant to your legal matters, you should fact check it.

It is. So I am.

I have said repeatedly:

The misinformation being spread here is precisely the misinformation responsible for the current situation.

Quote
90% of what you're "fact checking" here is not relevant and is almost entirely meaningless to anything in your life.

That is entirely inaccurate as I said above. Pretty much every false claim made here is part of the legal issue here. I have said this several times now.

It's very strange that the very people who spread the misinformation that destroyed multiple human lives don't see that it has that effect.

This is essentially saying: "punching you in the face doesn't hurt you so let us do it"

Quote

Quote
As far as anyone reading the thread can see--you fled simply because you made a false claim and got caught.

Proof anyone other than you views it that way?

I didn't claim that anyone other than me viewing the thread views it that way. This being an RPGsite thread, it's entirely possible only bad actors are reading it currently. However I still have a moral responsibility to point out the truth in case a reasonable person ever does read it. I have a responsibility to them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 04:54:41 PM
[Edit: I felt abused by you. I am not alleging abuse in a legal or even moral sense. I am saying I felt abused and walked away, and that it's absolutely a rational and mature thing for an adult to walk away when they feel abused, even if they cannot provide objective proof to someone else that they were abused.]

Great, now that you have gotten over that "feeling" then please change all of your original claims about abuse, and admit you were speaking from emotion (or whatever) and admit you were not telling the truth.

Because "I feel like xxxx" is not a sound basis to claim "I am xxxx". "I feel like a million bucks" does not mean you are actually a million bucks. (But that hurts nobody--lying and saying you were abused because you had some feelings has a victim--the person you claim you were abused by.)

Opening that door basically allows literally any kind of false claim to appear--and people in the RPG community act on false claims--so if you do not change your original claims of "abuse" to say well you "felt" abused and are aware you were not abused in any legal or moral sense there could be consequences for your victim.

If someone reads your false claim without your clarification, they may act on that defamation (as they have literally hundreds of times before) and if you care about making that not happen, you'll be responsible and take steps to make sure that doesn't happen.

-
-
It's fine to speak inaccurately out of emotion--so long as you go back and fix the harm you did as soon as you are emotionally able.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 05:38:17 PM
You told me not to call them out

Which is not the same as defending someone.

Quote
and you made personal attacks on me for calling them out.

No I said you can get to the truth without being an asshole towards people or you can get to the truth while being an asshole and that you seemed to be doing a lot of the later which was unwise. As a reminder, you also later called me an asshole. So we're even on that count.

Quote
This implies necessarily that:

It is not good to call them out.

That's defending them.

No, it's not.  We have a fundamental disagreement concerning what "defending" someone looks like. I said at the time and I repeat - it was bad for you to call everything out BECAUSE YOU WERE HARMING YOUR CREDIBILITY. That's not defending them, it was defending YOU. But you couldn't, and still cannot, see what you're looking like when you do this. Which is where my recent conversation with GeekyBugle comes in. You should have been able to see and understand what you were looking like to someone not on this message board and the value of looking better than you were looking.

Quote
you said I shouldn't do the right thing.

I did not. What you're doing is not "the right thing." The "right thing" would be for you to be making reasonable judgement calls about what is and is not valuable to call out and fact check, to value how you look in the process of making those fact checks and understand you have a limited amount of social credit within which you need to operate when fact checking, and to balance a variety of interests rather than just the "truth" interest. Right now you sound, to me, like the fictional character Rorschach from the Watchmen comics.

Or to put it in simpler terms, you sound like a guy who doesn't know what the right answer is when their significant other asks them if they look fat in an outfit, even if they do look fact in that outfit.

Quote
I have to do the right thing even if it harms me personally.

Thank you, Rorschach. This might be the money-quote of the thread, though you won't understand why.

Quote
I didn't claim that anyone other than me viewing the thread views it that way. This being an RPGsite thread, it's entirely possible only bad actors are reading it currently. However I still have a moral responsibility to point out the truth in case a reasonable person ever does read it. I have a responsibility to them.

You said "as far as anyone reading this thread can see."

How is that statement not mutually exclusive with the statement "I didn't claim that anyone other than me viewing the thread views it that way," or with new qualifiers about who "anyone" would be as if "anyone" means "only certain someones?"
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on September 01, 2022, 05:49:26 PM
Assuming that everything he says is true, Zak's posts here have shown evidence of trauma. The need for others to conform to his rigid standards of behavior is often seen in those that have emotional scarring. Here it is also combined with self-righteousness and a belief of holding inassailable moral high ground. These are telltale signs of an extremely fragile ego trying to exert power in whatever insignificant ways it believes might work. The title of this thread is "Enjoy," but that's not really what it's about at all. Whether he's conscious of it or not, he seems to be asking for help but constantly self-sabotages that effort (a common thing for those with fragile egos).
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on September 01, 2022, 05:59:35 PM
[Edit: I felt abused by you. I am not alleging abuse in a legal or even moral sense. I am saying I felt abused and walked away, and that it's absolutely a rational and mature thing for an adult to walk away when they feel abused, even if they cannot provide objective proof to someone else that they were abused.]

Great, now that you have gotten over that "feeling" then please change all of your original claims about abuse, and admit you were speaking from emotion (or whatever) and admit you were not telling the truth.

Wait. This is a pretty fundamental issue so let's talk about this.

Is it your opinion that, if someone cannot provide proof that abuse happened, that means there are not circumstances where abuse did happen if they cannot prove it?
Is it your opinion that, if someone claims that abuse is emotional in nature, that means it's not true because it's just an emotion they're having?

Because again, I felt abused by you: that is a true statement. Being unable or unwilling to "prove" you abused me does not change my opinion that you were abusive. But I am curious how you view these kinds of issues.

Quote
Because "I feel like xxxx" is not a sound basis to claim "I am xxxx"

Uh yes, it is, when it comes to saying you're feeling abused and therefore walking away. You alleged my intentions for walking away was something else. It absolutely is a sound basis to say I walked away because my perception was I was being abused. And that's the context of that conversation - you were speaking to my intentions and thought process for walking away.


Quote
"I feel like a million bucks" does not mean you are actually a million bucks. (But that hurts nobody--lying and saying you were abused because you had some feelings has a victim--the person you claim you were abused by.)

Wait, you think when people say "I feel like a million bucks" they are attempting to communicate that they are actually a million bucks? THAT analogy is the one you went for?

Dude, pause a moment. Re-read what you wrote. Imagine what an outsider thinks when they read what you just wrote - that "I feel like a million bucks" is "a lie" in your world perspective though one that doesn't hurt people. That you think that phrase is inherently someone telling a lie, albeit a harmless one.

Quote
Opening that door basically allows literally any kind of false claim to appear

No, it doesn't. Normal people balance these interests every day. It's a spectrum, and though we may not know precisely where the line between "needs to be challenged" and "need to let that go" might lay, normal people know with absolute certainty there are things that fall on the "need to let that go" side of the line.

And I am saying you used to know that, but now do not appear to know that. I am curious what happened, but honestly it's none of my business.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 06:00:23 PM

No I said you can get to the truth without being an asshole towards people or you can get to the truth while being an asshole and that you seemed to be doing a lot of the later which was unwise. As a reminder, you also later called me an asshole. So we're even on that count.

You made the first strike which means you are the aggressor, you are the troll and you are in the wrong.

Now: I wasn't an asshole. Now, that's subjective--but underlying that is a false claim:

You seem to be claiming that there was some other way to effectively establish these people were lying and hold them accountable besides what I was doing.

You haven't said specifically what that is and specifically what I was doing that you think makes me (in your own estimation apparently, not that of trolls you claim not to defend) an asshole.

Nobody in the entire RPG sphere has ever effectively done it.


Quote
What you're doing is not "the right thing." The "right thing" would be for you to be making reasonable judgement calls about what is and is not valuable to call out and fact check,

Which I did.

You have not made and backed up any specific claim here that the various claims I am dishonest (et al) are not valuable to call out and fact-check.


Quote
to value how you look in the process of making those fact checks and understand you have a limited amount of social credit within which you need to operate when fact checking, and to balance a variety of interests rather than just the "truth" interest.

The truth's more important than how you (a troll) think I look.

If you value my PR more than the truth, that's weird.

None of you people are asking "do I look fat?" you're trolls making false claims about my honesty (to pick one example)--which claim has been believed and acted on by thousands of people. You are, objectively, repeating misinformation which has caused real harm to lots of real people and which is--objectively--important in court.

Quote
You said "as far as anyone reading this thread can see."

If so, then I misspoke and apologize.

What I meant was: "As far as anyone reasonable who might read this thread can see."

If you point me to it, I'lll change it in the original so that no-one will misunderstand.

EDIT: found it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 06:02:02 PM
Assuming that everything he says is true, Zak's posts here have shown evidence of trauma.

Not  according to the actual shrinks.

It's concern-trolling to pal around with folks lying about my mental health and then pretend you care about it.

It's also--subjectively--fucking disgusting.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 06:11:42 PM
Wait. This is a pretty fundamental issue so let's talk about this.

Is it your opinion that, if someone cannot provide proof that abuse happened, that means there are not circumstances where abuse did happen if they cannot prove it?

Sure, but you're claiming abuse happened to you on the internet in this thread, so that's not in any way relevant here to you.

Anyone can look at this thread and see you made a personal attack on your victim and then got fact-checked and then fled the discussion.

You claim because: you had some feelings.

That's acceptable.

It doesn't mean you now are excused from the consequences of your shitty shitty shitty behavior once you've got yourself together emotionally enough to realize you did that shitty shitty shitty thing.

Quote
Is it your opinion that, if someone claims that abuse is emotional in nature, that means it's not true because it's just an emotion they're having?

Emotional abuse requires:

-You are aware an act genuinely harms someone emotionally.
-You unnecessarily do it anyway.

Quote
Because again, I felt abused by you: that is a true statement. Being unable or unwilling to "prove" you abused me does not change my opinion that you were abusive.

Nope, that's a lie. I was, objectively, not abusive to you.

The courts concur on this. Someone saying "I felt abused" is not the same as the person being abusive.

If it were you are all abusive.


Quote
Because "I feel like xxxx" is not a sound basis to claim "I am xxxx"

Uh yes, it is, when it comes to saying you're feeling abused and therefore walking away. You alleged my intentions for walking away was something else. It absolutely is a sound basis to say I walked away because my perception was I was being abused. And that's the context of that conversation - you were speaking to my intentions and thought process for walking away. [/quote]

It's sound to walk away (because oyu were emotionally compromised) it is not sound to claim you were abused.

Quote
No, it doesn't. Normal people balance these interests every day.

Regardless of what "normal people" do or don't what's important is:

You put a false claim that I abused you on the internet.

Lots of people (normal or otherwise) will take this claim out of context and assume its true and act on it. Or they can (this is what the laws about "Defamation per se" are about: claims so egregious that you don't even have to prove harm.)

Since it's not true in any way, you are morally responsible for that.
 
Again: the courts agree on this.  You saying "I felt...." doesn't mean I did xxx. If you feel this is morally wrong: you need to be taking it up with the legal system and with all the people who have thought hard about what counts as "True" and "guilty" in the history of civilization and tell them they're wrong.

I don't want you to be unnecessarily emotionally harmed nor did I do that to you.

So you're "feeling" doesn't change that.

If you had any empathy, you would be editing your false claim and apologizing to your victim for making it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 01, 2022, 06:21:32 PM
And Mistwell:

If being fact-checked here now is causing you emotional harm, then please stop posting and seek help.

IF you are too emotionally compromised to do this, then anyway reading who is Mistwell's friend has the responsibility to contact Mistwell and encourage them to seek help and (while seeking help and getting it) stop posting accusations  and attacks on the internet for their own benefit and also for the benefit of their victims and future potential victims.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:46:30 PM
"If you don't agree with me you're not a reasonable person" Some deranged individual with dellusions of grandeur (or inferiority complex) combined with persecution complex.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:50:08 PM
And now both Mistwell and HappyDaze have joined the ever expanding list of people falsely labelled as trolls in this thread.

I've locked horns with both and Rob also, can't say there's much love between any of them and myself.

Can't believe how many people started deffending him only to be attacked.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 01, 2022, 07:12:55 PM
I've locked horns with both and Rob also, can't say there's much love between any of them and myself.

Can't believe how many people started deffending him only to be attacked.

We've definitely have gone at it tooth and nail, Geeky. But I have no ill will to you whatsoever... I think that tempers flared that day. I absolutely respect your opinion on that matter even if I hold a differing view. Just wanted to point that out as my name was mentioned. Ta'.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 07:28:13 PM
I've locked horns with both and Rob also, can't say there's much love between any of them and myself.

Can't believe how many people started deffending him only to be attacked.

We've definitely have gone at it tooth and nail, Geeky. But I have no ill will to you whatsoever... I think that tempers flared that day. I absolutely respect your opinion on that matter even if I hold a differing view. Just wanted to point that out as my name was mentioned. Ta'.

Well, not loving someone doesn't mean having ill will towards them.

But thruth be told I hold no ill will to you, mistwell or happy either. Even if we do disagree on a lot of subjects.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 01, 2022, 07:32:44 PM
I've locked horns with both and Rob also, can't say there's much love between any of them and myself.

Can't believe how many people started deffending him only to be attacked.

We've definitely have gone at it tooth and nail, Geeky. But I have no ill will to you whatsoever... I think that tempers flared that day. I absolutely respect your opinion on that matter even if I hold a differing view. Just wanted to point that out as my name was mentioned. Ta'.

Well, not loving someone doesn't mean having ill will towards them.

But thruth be told I hold no ill will to you, mistwell or happy either. Even if we do disagree on a lot of subjects.

Yeah... that's cool  :). A lot of its just digital hot air - as communicating through text is notoriously hard to do when trying to convey any kind of nuance. I generally prefer to communicate down the pub, it's just a lot easier. Although with booze I tend to talk non-stop.  :)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 08:11:22 PM
I've locked horns with both and Rob also, can't say there's much love between any of them and myself.

Can't believe how many people started deffending him only to be attacked.

We've definitely have gone at it tooth and nail, Geeky. But I have no ill will to you whatsoever... I think that tempers flared that day. I absolutely respect your opinion on that matter even if I hold a differing view. Just wanted to point that out as my name was mentioned. Ta'.

Well, not loving someone doesn't mean having ill will towards them.

But thruth be told I hold no ill will to you, mistwell or happy either. Even if we do disagree on a lot of subjects.

Yeah... that's cool  :). A lot of its just digital hot air - as communicating through text is notoriously hard to do when trying to convey any kind of nuance. I generally prefer to communicate down the pub, it's just a lot easier. Although with booze I tend to talk non-stop.  :)

I used to be like that, now I almost don't drink.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 01, 2022, 08:12:38 PM
I've locked horns with both and Rob also, can't say there's much love between any of them and myself.

Can't believe how many people started deffending him only to be attacked.

We've definitely have gone at it tooth and nail, Geeky. But I have no ill will to you whatsoever... I think that tempers flared that day. I absolutely respect your opinion on that matter even if I hold a differing view. Just wanted to point that out as my name was mentioned. Ta'.

Well, not loving someone doesn't mean having ill will towards them.

But thruth be told I hold no ill will to you, mistwell or happy either. Even if we do disagree on a lot of subjects.

Yeah... that's cool  :). A lot of its just digital hot air - as communicating through text is notoriously hard to do when trying to convey any kind of nuance. I generally prefer to communicate down the pub, it's just a lot easier. Although with booze I tend to talk non-stop.  :)

I used to be like that, now I almost don't drink.

I just do it the odd time now that I've got older.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 01, 2022, 08:57:36 PM
We're on a new page (hello page 62!)

The last page (page 61) had Zak doing the full asshole thing, and I'm personally surprised - I thought he had run out of steam.  He must have had one hell of a cocaine bender to post so many times in a row.  What's AMAZING is watching him tell Mistwell that if Mistwell feels emotionally abused by Zak that he needs to show PROOF or it is defamation. 

No, folks, you're not even allowed to say that you think you're being REASONABLE for calling Zak out. 

Here's a real gem:
[quote="Zak S"
Now: I wasn't an asshole. Now, that's subjective--but underlying that is a false claim:[/quote]

Some people have expressed GENUINE CONCERN for Zak's mental state.  They've gone as far as suggesting that he might be emotionally fragile, and or hurt enough to consider self-harm.  Well folks, I agree that if you worry that Zak might hurt himself, the MORALLY RIGHT THING TO DO is to stop pointing out his many failings, and maybe take a break from calling him an asshole.  PERSONALLY, I don't think that Zak is capable of feeling bad about anything he's ever done, so I don't worry about hurting his feelings.  If it were POSSIBLE, surely it would have happened by now and he would have experienced AT LEAST ONE MOMENT of self-reflection.  But even though we're on a new page and I think that it's important to make sure people are adequately warned about Zak, instead of explaining again, why I, personally think that Zak is an asshole, I'm just going to emphasize the following post by HappyDaze: 


Assuming that everything he says is true, Zak's posts here have shown evidence of trauma. The need for others to conform to his rigid standards of behavior is often seen in those that have emotional scarring. Here it is also combined with self-righteousness and a belief of holding inassailable moral high ground. These are telltale signs of an extremely fragile ego trying to exert power in whatever insignificant ways it believes might work. The title of this thread is "Enjoy," but that's not really what it's about at all. Whether he's conscious of it or not, he seems to be asking for help but constantly self-sabotages that effort (a common thing for those with fragile egos).

I will spend the next 12-24 hours considering whether referring to Zak S. as an emotionally fragile narcissist with clear signs of emotional scarring would be more productive than simplifying that description to :asshole
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on September 01, 2022, 09:03:15 PM
 8) Quoting attempt really fucked up this post, so just disregard.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on September 01, 2022, 09:10:28 PM
Professionally speaking, the preferred term is jackhole, but in this case, how about ZAKHOLE?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 01, 2022, 09:11:18 PM
8) Quoting attempt really fucked up this post, so just disregard.

I feel you... I hate using that quote thingey.  ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 09:14:12 PM
8) Quoting attempt really fucked up this post, so just disregard.

I feel you... I hate using that quote thingey.  ;D

If it helps, when trying to break down a big post I copy it to a text editor and do my thing there, then copy/paste to the forum and then preview to see if I didn't boomer the whole thing.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 01, 2022, 09:16:45 PM
8) Quoting attempt really fucked up this post, so just disregard.

I feel you... I hate using that quote thingey.  ;D

If it helps, when trying to break down a big post I copy it to a text editor and do my thing there, then copy/paste to the forum and then preview to see if I didn't boomer the whole thing.

Ta', that sounds like the sensible thing to do. I'll try that! :)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: HappyDaze on September 01, 2022, 09:40:44 PM
8) Quoting attempt really fucked up this post, so just disregard.

I feel you... I hate using that quote thingey.  ;D

If it helps, when trying to break down a big post I copy it to a text editor and do my thing there, then copy/paste to the forum and then preview to see if I didn't boomer the whole thing.
I usually post from my phone, so I accept the occasional quoting fuck-up.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 10:20:31 PM
8) Quoting attempt really fucked up this post, so just disregard.

I feel you... I hate using that quote thingey.  ;D

If it helps, when trying to break down a big post I copy it to a text editor and do my thing there, then copy/paste to the forum and then preview to see if I didn't boomer the whole thing.
I usually post from my phone, so I accept the occasional quoting fuck-up.

My fingers are too big, the "keyboard" too small and you need to switch to get the numbers, plus my eyes aren't up to the task to use my phone like that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 02, 2022, 03:10:58 AM
He must have had one hell of a cocaine bender to ...

If you think I do coke then sign an affadvit to that effect. I'll happily sign an agreement to take a drug test at any time.

But you won't because you're just a troll saying random things.

Therefore: all your claims need to be ignored.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 02, 2022, 03:11:54 AM
Professionally speaking, the preferred term is jackhole, but in this case, how about ZAKHOLE?
Only a troll would talk that way.

Obviously you earlier pretense of giving a fuck about your victims' mental health is false.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 02, 2022, 06:59:17 AM
He must have had one hell of a cocaine bender to ...

If you think I do coke then sign an affadvit to that effect. I'll happily sign an agreement to take a drug test at any time.

But you won't because you're just a troll saying random things.

Therefore: all your claims need to be ignored.


Sorry Zak.  I meant coke-bender as a colloquialism and back-handed compliment.  You see, most people don't post multiple times in a row and instead make an effort to put everything in to a single coherent thought to enable the audience to follow along more easily.  Multiple posts are indicative of a high energy level, like jittery from too much caffeine, on meth (speed), or high from cocaine.  But some people are just naturally energetic and may appear frenetic or manic for no reason at all. 

It was my IMPRESSION that your posts had slowed down, your tone had improved, and you were perhaps becoming disengaged.  But then your more recent series of posts reversed that impression. 

But if it matters to you, I'm happy to state for the record: I have no reason to suspect that Zak S. has ever taken a controlled substance legally or illegally, with or without a doctor's instruction.  While I have personally made the choice NOT to use what are called 'drugs' colloquially, I know many people who have made that choice, and using drugs recreationally does not automatically carry a stigma in my mind.  Particularly with marijuana I know a lot of people who use the drug regularly but do not appear to have become impaired or jeopardized their life.  I in no way meant to imply that Zak S. was in any way less responsible for his actions the way I would if I knew he had a substance abuse problem that interfered with his normal judgement. 

Zak S is an asshole with no drugs at all
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 02, 2022, 08:34:22 AM
While it's good that Deaddmwalking has corrected one piece of misinformation its important to note he is still a troll and will have to correct many more false statements before what he says can be taken seriously by any reasonable person or be considered an accurate source of information.

A recent, obvious example, he said:

.  What's AMAZING is watching him tell Mistwell that if Mistwell feels emotionally abused by Zak that he needs to show PROOF or it is defamation. 
As you can see from the exchange here, I said nothing of the kind:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/900/

Mistwell only needs to show proof if he wants to say he was abused, not if he wants to claim he feels a certain way. The courts have concurred on this exact point.

And even then, he only has to do that if he wants to be a good person or one whose claims reasonable people can rely on.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 02, 2022, 08:56:58 AM
While it's good that Deaddmwalking has corrected one piece of misinformation its important to note he is still a troll and will have to correct many more false statements before what he says can be taken seriously by any reasonable person or be considered an accurate source of information.

Zak, I stand by the claim that I have not made ANY OTHER FALSE STATEMENTS.  It remains my sincerely held belief that you are an asshole, which I admit is entirely based on my subjective standard.  Most of my arguments in this thread have been supporting why MY DEFINITION aligns with the COMMONLY HELD definition. 

I maintain that you are, essentially, saying that you can say mean things about me because I said mean things about you first.  That is an accusation and you have not provided proof.  Therefore, you have failed to meet the standard you set for yourself

I do claim that you said mean things about me before I said mean things about you.  You have insisted that I provide evidence, because you claim it is an accusation and all accusations require proof.  If that were true, you'd provide evidence for your accusation, then I could rebut.  It is not fair for you to always lay the burden of proof on others when you're ALSO MAKING ACCUSATIONSThat makes you an asshole.

Additionally, I maintain that it doesn't matter who called someone a poopy-head first.  Insisting it does is juvenile, and obviously so.  Pretending that you are justified in the same behavior if it happens first would logically mean that if you provide an example of me being mean to you and I prove that you were mean first, by your definitions and rigid expectations, you would owe me an apology and would have to correct all of your false statements up to this point.  Again, remember, that is YOUR STANDARD that you want to hold everyone else to; not mine.  If you are sincere and that is the standard you are using, you are an asshole because you are maintaining a double standard - an accusation I have made multiple times and you have never refuted, only claiming that other people are making accusations that are unfounded, but your accusations are well-founded and require no proof beyond your interpretation of their innermost thoughts and feelings. 

Now, because I don't think it matters whether you called me a name first or I called you first, I feel compelled to explain that I think you are an asshole not because you said mean things to me.  Lots of people do that, and it doesn't bother me at all.  This is the internet.  I expect hyperbole, a certain amount of violent AGREEMENT and even more violent disagreement.  I am not worried about tone or civility.  While I think those are admirable traits, I, unlike you, do not insist that the people I interact with meet my rigid standards of civilized debate before I recognize that they are human beings.  It should thus be emphasized, nothing about the way you insult people is included in my accusation that you are an asshole.  While I understand that other people think tone and civility are important, and MANY PEOPLE think you are an asshole because of your tone, I am willing to overlook that and focus SOLELY ON YOUR ACTIONS. 


Mistwell only needs to show proof if he wants to say he was abused, not if he wants to claim he feels a certain way.

And even then, he only has to do that if he wants to be a good person or one whose claims reasonable people can rely on.

If someone feels abused, they were abused.  You're an asshole and one reason you're an asshole is that you refuse to agree on the definition of words.  I am going to use this definition for abuse: treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.  I am further going to define cruelty as: callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

If someone says that they FEEL abused and you say 'prove that the level of callous treatment I am directing toward you meets the definition of abuse' you are showing callous indifference to claimed suffering.  That makes you an asshole, even if you think that person is too sensitive or over-reacting. 

Abuse, like you being an asshole are measured subjectively by the person using the terms.  Your failure to realize and insistence that you are the judge of what objectively meets the definition is not acceptable, and one of the reasons I say you are an asshole

Now, in this post I have explained how multiple actions you take show that you meet my definition of asshole.  You have not denied that you participate in these actions.  You have tried to claim that even if you do it, you're not an asshole, but you haven't provided an ACTUAL REASON other than claiming that since you don't think you're an asshole, you couldn't possibly be an asshole.  Rebutting the accusation with 'I'm not actually an asshole so you're lying' is not a rebuttal.  You can't say 'I do the things that make someone an asshole, but that label doesn't apply to me'.  You could argue that those behaviors aren't consistent with being an asshole, but I don't think you have. 

As far as I'm concerned, you've admitted to all of the behaviors that I've defined as what makes you an asshole.  More importantly, in this thread you have demonstrated those behaviors again and again. 

And what is staggering to me is how often I've invited you to demonstrate you're an asshole, and you've done it.  You literally must be the least self-aware and yet SELF-ABSORBED person I've ever met (online or otherwise). 


@Mistwell: I know that Zak is not worth engaging, and I know you've decided that before and I expect you'll decide it again.  I think that Zak's naked cruelty is on full display in his responses to you, so I would appreciate you leaving your posts for posterity, rather than editing them if you choose to disengage.  Zak is an asshole and he has been abusive toward you (at least in my estimation) and I understand the temptation to remove your comments.  However, they provide context for others, and I think they deserve to remain as proof of the behaviors I've outlined above. 

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 02, 2022, 02:42:39 PM

Zak, I stand by the claim that I have not made ANY OTHER FALSE STATEMENTS.
You claimed I didn't follow my own rules:
Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you.
...but then you couldn't prove it.

You not only made many false statements, by refusing to give proof you committed a burden of proof fallacy while you were at it.


I maintain that you are, essentially, saying that you can say mean things about me because I said mean things about you first. That is an accusation and you have not provided proof.
I didn't say anything about "mean things". That's a vague category I don't use --and sometimes saying mean things is justified

So that's another lie.

I made much more concrete claims: misinformation and first-strike personal attacks. Those are not justifiable here.

The first ever interaction I'm aware we had is you stating misinformation about your tongue shoving fantasy ( http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=55466 )

And your first interaction in this thread was a personal attack https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/375/


Quote
Abuse, like you being an asshole are measured subjectively by the person using the terms. 

In addition to abuse, what other crimes are subjective in your troll brain? Tax fraud? Breaking and entering? Murder?

Again, the courts do not agree with you. Abuse is a word with a definition.

If abuse were subjective this thread wouldn't exist, since Ettin got succesffully sued over falsely claiming I was an abuser. If the defense "abuse is subjective" were available to him, then he could've took it and won.
Lots of people have been successfully sued for defamation for falsely claiming abuse--that's not a thing they can do in the case of "asshole".

These things prove you're a troll and nothing else you propose needs to be taken seriously. Your claims are not reliable.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 02, 2022, 02:48:55 PM
double post
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 02, 2022, 02:58:27 PM
These things prove you're a troll and nothing else you propose needs to be taken seriously. Your claims are not reliable.

Says you.  I claim that YOU are not reliable.  But again, I'm content to let the readers decide.  You're really doing an excellent job making it easy for them to see my position.  Thank you for that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: FingerRod on September 02, 2022, 07:46:51 PM
These things prove you're a troll and nothing else you propose needs to be taken seriously. Your claims are not reliable.

Says you.  I claim that YOU are not reliable.  But again, I'm content to let the readers decide.  You're really doing an excellent job making it easy for them to see my position.  Thank you for that.

I don’t think that is going to go how you think it will.

I’d be willing to bet most around here think you’re both a couple of wanks. And the ideal situation is something close to Zak suing the fuck out of as many people as possible and then falling into a black hole, pulling a couple of you bed-wetters with him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on September 02, 2022, 07:52:28 PM
I didn't think Zak could get any crazier, but comparing disagreeing with him online to murder is hilariously on brand.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 02, 2022, 07:56:31 PM
I didn't think Zak could get any crazier, but comparing disagreeing with him online to murder is hilariously on brand.


I didn't say anything about merely"disagreeing" with me being a transgression of any kind.

Since the comments you're referring to are right here in post 933 above on this same page, that proves (again) you're lying (or too negligent to check your accusations, that you're a troll and that your claims can't be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: the crypt keeper on September 03, 2022, 10:12:30 AM
Alcohol is sooo much better than coke.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Elfdart on September 08, 2022, 02:15:33 AM

For example, I've read Mandy's accusations.  Even if they rose to the level of defamation in court, that doesn't mean that the substance is false.     

In every country in the English-speaking world, truth is an absolute defense in cases of libel/slander/defamation. So in order for a claim to be defamatory/libelous/slanderous it must be substantively false.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Theory of Games on September 10, 2022, 08:44:04 PM
Remember "Punk" ?

It was so free. It was FUCK THIS. It meant something in an age of corporate hug. Punk was FU culture. It was freedom.

And now it's banned. Now if you say "Fk the establishment" you get banned. Crazy.

Keep being wild. Fk the establishment.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 10, 2022, 09:39:06 PM
Remember "Punk" ?

It was so free. It was FUCK THIS. It meant something in an age of corporate hug. Punk was FU culture. It was freedom.

Music to my ears... Unfortuntely many so-called punks tuned into faux punks.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: King Tyranno on September 11, 2022, 07:56:17 AM
I didn't think Zak could get any crazier, but comparing disagreeing with him online to murder is hilariously on brand.

God just imagine if he actually had the self awareness to realize that if he stopped championing the very actions that led to his cancellation, and stopped still championing both those actions as it isn't him getting cancelled and the alphabet doctrine he could very well of not gotten cancelled. He could've even gotten a decent girlfriend who wasn't a BPD ridden porn star with a big flickering sign over her reading "I will absolutely ruin your life".  He didn't have to become a right wing bible thumping redneck evil trump voting person. He could've maintained his left wing socialist beliefs but with a functional social life that wasn't dictated by the whims of mentally unwell people.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 11, 2022, 02:39:08 PM

God just imagine if he actually had the self awareness to realize that if he stopped championing....

As I've explained several times: I know that pointing out shitty people lying is not going to go down well with the shitty people who lie.

I believe in doing the right thing even when it's unpopular.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 10:44:13 AM

God just imagine if he actually had the self awareness to realize that if he stopped championing....

As I've explained several times: I know that pointing out shitty people lying is not going to go down well with the shitty people who lie.

I believe in doing the right thing even when it's unpopular.

The problem is that you're a very bad judge of who is a shitty person lying.  You CONTINUALLY make the assertion that people that don't like you must be shitty people who lie because you seem incapable of grasping the idea that people might dislike you for ACTUAL REASONS (as has been discussed and explained in excruciating detail over and over in this thread AND where you have demonstrated those exact behaviors). 

There may be other shitty people that you talk to, Zak, but that doesn't mean you aren't one, too.  I assert you are. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 11:59:46 AM
Much has happened in the world in the last week or so but the burden of proof fallacy has not been repealed.

If you want to claim I did something wrong, burden of proof remains on the accuser. You can't provide it.

You began the conversation with a personal attack:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/375/

So, that's a first-strike personal attack. I don't need to consider your claims or address them. No one does. You're a troll.

Now you do claim I broke faith first, justifying your trolling behavior, but when asked for proof of this accusation you didn't give them, in post 870 above.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 12:25:45 PM
If you want to claim I did something wrong, burden of proof remains on the accuser. You can't provide it.

Actually, I can. I have before. 

Quote from: Zak S
Quote from: deaddmwalking
Trying to argue that every discussion requires a specified target audience is assinine. 

Staking out a position in the English language includes a presumed [to me].  'This is shit and this is why' is functionally the same as 'this is shit to me and this is why'.  The 'to me' is presumed because you're the one speaking. 

Incorrect.

Some things are facts (the math here doesn't add up, it is a mistake, no-one would defend it or use it once the mistake's pointed out), some things are opinions (I don't like how the math here adds up,it leads to consequences I don't liek but clearly other people do like).

Confusing those two things confuses the discussion and confuses fact with opinion. And leads to factual errors.

Factual errors in public lead to bullshit.

You can pretty much say what you like in public, but when you lie on purpose in a supposed conversation about nonfictional things you are basically making everything worse. Every time.

A conversation about practical things based on inaccurate facts as a given is a useless conversation. All the conclusions are suspect.

You are essentially defending your right to be confused or confuse people in order to score rhetorical points.

Quote
The fact that there are some people who might be able to do that DOES NOT indicate that having tools for those who are not is somehow less desireable. 

I do not understand why you would feel compelled to make this obvious point.

For the 6th time See this thread, page 11, Zak's second comment, item #2.

Do you not see that?

Do you not see that?

Do you not see that?

Do you not see that?

Do you not se that?

Why are you acting like you can't see that?

Why do I have to even point that out to you?


Quote
I'll take the drama of an internet shit-storm that actually produces interesting discussion to a 'let everyone find whats suits them best and never suggest improvements under any circumstances'.

Again, this seems to be another case of basic illiteracy on your part.

"Don't pretend your opinion is a fact" is not the same as "Do not propose that x improvement might work in y case".

If you think that it does then you need to make that argument rather than saying

"IF I CAN'T START A MONKEY SHIT-FIGHT THEN I CAN'T ACTUALLY PUBLICALLY PROPOSE A RULES IMPROVEMENT!"

You can and it is often done. You go "I like this. Nothing extant provides that. I have created this. Try it."

Holy shit, dude did that never occur to you ever in your life and your mind is just blown?

Probably not. Probably you realized it's possible to discuss rules improvements without being a douche it's just not fun for you.

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult (and also obviously and factually untrue as you quoted my typed response - an obvious rebuttal to an accusation of illiteracy).  Your post was also very demeaning.  Ultimately, I called you out on unreasonable standards of debate, and you attacked ME because you didn't like what I had to say.  Prior to that I did not say anything directly insulting to you.  I did say that your analogy 'rules are like training wheels' was a bad analogy, and tried to offer a better one 'rules are like bikes, and stripping away rules to give you a functionally similar device that works for some people with great skill like a unicycle' which isn't inherently insulting - in fact, I was giving you the benefit of being 'an exceptionally good GM' who could get the same performance out of a unicycle as someone else could out of a bike.  But again, that'd be litigating the past. 

I don't call you an asshole because you were a jerk in 2013.  I call you an asshole because you are an asshole in 2022.  You STILL DO THE SAME THINGS and numerous people who CAME TO THIS THREAD TO DEFEND YOU have since come to the recognition that you're an asshole. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 12:29:17 PM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 12:35:47 PM
Zak,

Of course this was before.  Well before.  But your 'accusation' has been 'rebutted' since you seem to accept that you were at least dismissive toward me if not insulting.  If you THINK that I was insulting BEFORE this and you were JUSTIFIED in this type of behavior, it's up to YOU to find me being an ass to you.  Because if you're making an accusation, blah blah burden of proof blah blah blah. 

You're an asshole Zak.  You've been an asshole to me, and to MANY OTHERS that haven't deserved it.  You're INCAPABLE of acting any other way.  It is my sincere hope that you begin to recognize it. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 12:38:58 PM
Zak,

Of course this was before.  Well before.

Ok, thanks.

So, again, to establish order-of-events, please link to what you believe to be our first interaction.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 02:40:08 PM
Zak,

Of course this was before.  Well before.

Ok, thanks.

So, again, to establish order-of-events, please link to what you believe to be our first interaction.

So just to be clear, you're asking ME to provide evidence that I WASN'T a jerk prior to this because you're unwilling to assume burden of proof the way you ask others to do?  I mean, clearly if you thought I was a jerk first, you'd want to find it.  If I posted something that I claimed was our first interaction, would you accept that?  Since it would make you look bad, I'd think you'd want to find a justification yourself. 

But sure, Zak, even though your modus operandi is to make people jump through increasingly difficult hoops just to have a conversation (otherwise you accuse them of being trolls and thus of no worth and not even deserving of life-saving treatment if they were in an auto accident), it sounds like you're agreeing that you were a jerk in the quote above?  Since you're infamous for shifting goal posts, I'd really appreciate you being clear - do you think that you weren't a jerk in the quote above, or do you think you were justified being a jerk because you think I was a jerk first? 

I mean, for myself, I don't think 'he was a jerk first' is a very good defense, and I think 'I'm not a jerk' is laughable based on the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, but if I play your game, I'd like to know what the POINT even is.  I mean, while finding the 'first post' we interacted in is trivially easy, it's still an extra (and really unnecessary) amount of effort on my part. 

PS - I've seen you tell people that they should just 'ask for clarification' and then tell them that 'the amount of work to provide the clarification they asked for is too much, so you won't do it unless they agree without even seeing it that if you provide it they'll agree you were right the whole time.  I'm not going to ask that of you.  But I really do think it's important to remind people of your DEMONSTRATED double-standards. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 02:43:43 PM
So just to be clear, you're asking ME to provide evidence that I WASN'T a jerk prior to this because you're unwilling to assume burden of proof the way you ask others to do?


No. Your claim is I broke good-faith argument with you first.

That's a claim you made.

So: provide proof, not just a random interaction from the middle of our conversation. You have to prove it's me initiating.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 03:11:14 PM
So just to be clear, you're asking ME to provide evidence that I WASN'T a jerk prior to this because you're unwilling to assume burden of proof the way you ask others to do?


No. Your claim is I broke good-faith argument with you first.

That's a claim you made.

So: provide proof, not just a random interaction from the middle of our conversation. You have to prove it's me initiating.

No, Zak.  You're putting words in my mouth, again.  I claim you are an asshole. I don't accuse you of 'breaking a good faith argument'.  I don't accuse you of EVER HAVING PARTICIPATED in a good-faith argument. 

But since you've asked and I already told you providing our first interaction (that is, my first participation in a conversation you were already engaged in) is quoted in full below:

Quote from: deaddmwalking
It took a while to get caught up on the discussion thus far.

To Zak S's argument that rules are like 'training wheels', I would like to disagree and help to refine the analogy. You've already agreed that certain rules are necessary - you don't want 'no rules'. For a proper functioning bike, there are certain common elements that are required. Tires, gears, steering, and a seat.

I can ride a bike without a seat, but you can bet that it is something I'm going to add on immediately. There are things that I can't ride a bike without. I need tires.

Now, I will fully admit that there are people who are more skilled riders than I am. Some of them can even ride a unicycle better than I can ride a bike. On a unicycle they can do tricks, steer - anything I can do on a bike. The fact that there are more skilled riders that can achieve a 'bike' experience on a unicycle does not mean I would be disappointed to buy a bicycle and find it came with only one tire.

While it could function 'for some people' - it would not function 'for me' - at least not without far more effort than I am willing to put in.

Other accessories - like a basket or training wheels - are designed to be ignored or removed - but removing them does not alter the underlying functioning of the bike.

When you say 'superfluous rules get in your way' - I take that to mean you don't actually need a bike. You're fine with a unicycle. I'm fine with that. And if someone wants to produce a bicycle for me and a unicycle for you, I'm fine with that as well.

But if that person came to these forums and asked about what I was looking for in a bike, I would tell them my honest opinion. Hopefully, they'll be able to figure out whether bicycles or unicycles are more desired and/or more fun to produce. There's no reason they can't maintain their integrity and achieve financial success.

And of course - if something 'is bad', that implies 'bad for me'. And that's sufficient. If I tell a designer 'this is a bad rule', I'll usually explain why it is bad for me, but I'm under no obligation to explain why it is bad to some audiences but not others. If my perspective is representative, the designer may want to include my observations. If my criticisms are not representative, they may want to ignore me. It is the obligation of the person receiving criticism to determine if the one offering the criticism can be relied upon. We would expect different criticisms from different corners depending on their preferences. Clearly identifying our underlying preferences each time we provide a comment would be unduly cumbersome and fraught with imprecision.

Presumably, someone asking for discussion on their rule on a public formum is interested in a wide variety of opinions. 'This is bad and here's why' is at least as useful as 'this doesn't work for me and this is why'.

For context, Zak was advancing an argument that 'using rules is like having training wheels on your bike' which I think already qualifies as insulting, but it was also a bad analogy.  More importantly, Zak was trying to impose restrictions on how people are permitted to present their opinions.  Clearly trying to prevent him from controlling the rules of debate appears as an existential threat from his perspective.  :) 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 03:23:04 PM


No, Zak.  You're putting words in my mouth, again.  I claim you are an asshole. I don't accuse you of 'breaking a good faith argument'.

You claimed I want people to follow rules I don't follow.

So, anyway, you haven't proved that.

You provided a random conversation which doesn't prove that--but the only way you could even try to prove it is if you could give us the rest of the information you're refusing to give which is real easy:

just post the link to the first interaction you're aware of us having. Also if it doesn't show clearly how it lead to the conversation you posted, it'd help to do that, too.

Order of events is crucial to proving this kind of claim of wrongdoing.

Again: please give readers a link, (not a quote, which could be more easily faked and does not allow people to review the conversation) so interested parties can review the conversation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 04:01:40 PM
No, Zak.  You're putting words in my mouth, again.  I claim you are an asshole. I don't accuse you of 'breaking a good faith argument'.

You claimed I want people to follow rules I don't follow.
No, Zak.  You're putting words in my mouth, again.  I claim you are an asshole. I don't accuse you of wanting people to follow rules you don't follow. 

That's an accusation. Quote me saying that.  Because I sure as hell didn't say that in anything I quoted.  Burden of proof, you know?  That thing you keep saying if you feel that someone has made an accusation against you, but doesn't apply when you make accusations against anyone else, apparently? 

So, anyway, you haven't proved that.

And just so we're clear, I won't be proving that.  That's a strawman position you've created to debunk.  I reiterate - I do not claim that you want people to follow rules that you don't use.  I have no idea how you got that idea, and I think that's a laughably stupid position, and I can only imagine you've chosen it because of how easy it is to dunk on.  My claim is that you're an asshole.  I have proved it

just post the link to the first interaction you're aware of us having. Also if it doesn't show clearly how it lead to the conversation you posted, it'd help to do that, too.

Zak, I just posted our first interaction.  You said 'rules are like training wheels'.  I said 'that's a bad analogy' and 'it's not fair to demand that people exhaustively detail their particular preferences in regard to everything in the world before they offer criticism.  As far as I can tell, you responded by bullying me (but I don't care about that). 

Again: please give readers a link, (not a quote, which could be more easily faked and does not allow people to review the conversation) so interested parties can review the conversation.

Sure Zak, I'll post a link, instead of constantly demanding that everyone else Google some string of words that MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT pull up any relevant data, but I'll point out, you're doing that thing that you do again - you know, maintaining a double standard that applies to everyone else but not you - and that's one reason you're an asshole. 

My First Post (http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=54808&start=150) is on page 7

Again and still, while I encourage you to exhaustively review our interactions to see why people think you're an asshole, NOTHING IN THAT THREAD is actually RELEVANT.  Every proof that people need to see that you're an asshole is in THIS THREAD, here at theRPGsite - you know the one that has more than 60 pages of you being an asshole in exactly the ways people say that you're an asshole.  As far as I can tell, your only defenses are:

1) It's okay to be an asshole if someone else was an asshole first
2) Everyone who is not me was an asshole first

If those are NOT your defenses, please feel free to say so, but I don't consider EITHER of those to be a valid defense - especially when the premise of the argument is not 'you treat people badly' (even though you do) but is instead based on your specific actions when discussing things online which include (but are not limited to):

(1) setting impossibly high standards regarding clarity of language for others that you continually fail to meet yourself;
(2) insisting that if you have not been clear that anyone that doesn't understand you must exhaustively PRIVATELY interrogate you for a full understanding of additional information that you failed to disclose before posting any rebuttal while simultaneously insisting that you have fully understood the only possible position of your opponents without asking any clarifying questions at all;
(3) then attributing your 'opponent' a position that they do not hold and demanding that they provide extensive quotes to prove something only you've claimed;
(4) then claiming that your opponents are 'trolls' and therefore no discussion is EVEN POSSIBLE;
(5) but that you're here to 'set the record straight' and ignore any evidence brought up in support of a contrary position;
(6) and repeat ad nauseum. 

Fortunately for me, because you're an asshole, I'm not as tired of telling you that as I would have expected by this point. 

You are sorely mistaken if you think one or two comments you made a decade ago has garnered such deep-seated disdain for you and your online presence.  I am responding to an ONGOING PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR that I think is toxic, and is not directed at me.  I mean, you do it to me, too, but I don't care about that because I don't respect you.  If I know you're an asshole and you act like an asshole, that's just meeting my expectations.  It's when you're an ASSHOLE to people that DON'T know you that I think it's worth saying something.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 04:35:14 PM
No, Zak.  You're putting words in my mouth, again.  I claim you are an asshole. I don't accuse you of wanting people to follow rules you don't follow. 

You said above that I never had a good faith conversation. (I think, let's take a look:)

I don't accuse you of EVER HAVING PARTICIPATED in a good-faith argument. 

Since I say people should have good faith conversations (above on this page)--that's a rule they should follow.

So, yeah, you're claiming that.

As for your claim I did something bad.

You made an inaccurate statement in your first post:

Quote
'This is bad and here's why' is at least as useful as 'this doesn't work for me and this is why'.

To which I (since i engage in good faith conversations) replied..

Quote
"The first is confusing opinion for fact, the second is fact. The first is responsible for 90% of pointless monkey shitfights on the internet."

That was (according to your) our first exchange and I am looking at it now for the first time in a while.

So, we got:

Claim from you.

Counterclaim from me

You didn't address my counterclaim--either to agree or disagree. Ever.

I could be wrong and be missing a follow-up from you but it appears:

You didn't die or lose your internet and you kept talking afterwards (for example now) to me and other people without addressing my counterclaim.

So: that means you are a troll. It also means that I was perfectly nice to you and you chose to be dishonest and not address what I said.

If you addressed it somewhere, please let me know. But so far as I know, you completely blew off what I said and then went on with your life--not a good faith act.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 05:20:19 PM
Oh, Zak, I see what's happening.  You think that when you say something that it counts as 'rebutting'. 

This is a forum.  It's an ongoing conversation.  I am NOT OBLIGATED to address all of your so-called 'points'.  I assert that people do not need to exhaustively detail their wants, needs, preferences, and point of view before venturing an opinion.  I don't agree that 'The first is confusing opinion for fact, the second is fact. The first is responsible for 90% of pointless monkey shitfights on the internet.'  But ultimately, I don't CARE to disagree verbally.  I think my position is easily understood and since I'm not trying to convince you - only to state my position - there's no need to respond if you haven't said anything substantial, especially since it was in this case tangential to the larger discussion.  I also don't agree that failing to address every so-called 'point' automatically makes someone a troll.  Conversations move on, statements that might have been relevant on page 2 may not be relevant on page 64; people may have said what I would have said before (or better) than I did.  Group discussions have different rules than formal debate between two parties.  I think you'd be crazy to assert otherwise. 

But let me clear.  I am done talking about a conversation that happened almost a decade ago.  You seem to think it is relevant.  I don't..  Sure, it happens to be an example of you being an asshole.  From my perspective it happens to be the first time I engaged with you and came to realize you're an asshole.  While I think there's plenty of evidence to show that you were an asshole to me, I don't actually care about that.  The larger issue, and the only one I care about is that you are an asshole to EVERYONE.  As I said before, I'm a big-boy with a good situation.  I have a good job, I have a good marriage, I have a good family.  There are people who want to call you an asshole but when you start levying personal insults (as I've seen you do) some of those people might choose not to call you out on your bullshit because they anticipate the hurtful comments that you'll levy at them (some of which may be true, even if they shouldn't be insults).  For example, you've used virgin as an insult (and don't bother to deny it or ask for quotes - you know you) even though some of the people you're talking to could be 12 years old, male or female - you don't know!  I've said it before - the reason I want to be the one that calls you out as an asshole is because your normal insults don't phase me - they just don't land because they're not true.  Without doing exhaustive research, the fact that I've called you an asshole so many times in this post might seem like justification for you to be an asshole to me, and I'm absolutely fine with that. 

What I am not fine with is how you're an asshole to everyone, even when you're engaging with them the first time, even when they're here to defend you.  You are toxic Zak S., and it is ONLY because of YOUR ACTIONS.  Everyone deserves to be warned.  And if my comments here siphon time away from you being an asshole elsewhere BONUS.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 05:28:22 PM

This is a forum.  It's an ongoing conversation.  I am NOT OBLIGATED to address all of your so-called 'points'.

Only if you want to claim your ideas are based on reason.

If you ware saying your ideas are not based in reason then just say that.

Failing to do either leaves us all with no legitimate reason for you to have said anything so you just wasted everyone's time.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on September 12, 2022, 05:52:10 PM

This is a forum.  It's an ongoing conversation.  I am NOT OBLIGATED to address all of your so-called 'points'.

Only if you want to claim your ideas are based on reason.

If you ware saying your ideas are not based in reason then just say that.

Failing to do either leaves us all with no legitimate reason for you to have said anything so you just wasted everyone's time.

classic dumbass rationalist behavior- quote only one line of your opponent's post, then act condescendingly.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 05:54:57 PM

This is a forum.  It's an ongoing conversation.  I am NOT OBLIGATED to address all of your so-called 'points'.

Only if you want to claim your ideas are based on reason.

If you ware saying your ideas are not based in reason then just say that.

Failing to do either leaves us all with no legitimate reason for you to have said anything so you just wasted everyone's time.

classic dumbass rationalist behavior- quote only one line of your opponent's post, then act condescendingly.

If the entire thing you disagree about hinges on one inaccurate claim in that line, that's the right thing to do.

So, not dumb. Clear, simple, easy to follow.

Anything else would be wasting time.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 12, 2022, 06:13:30 PM
Like addressing your gish-gallops that contain neither a rebuttal nor a coherent point. 

And yet, here we are.  No Zak, I'm not going to say that failing to 'address all of your points' makes me unreasonable.  That's your standard and like all of your standards it is one you seek to hold everyone except yourself to.  Of course it's amusing when you refuse to answer direct questions and then demand that people quote themselves asking you questions or pointing out where you haven't.  I mean, I am flabbergasted that you could do that on the same page that the question is posted, or where you refused to answer and instead accused someone of being a 'virgins. 

Zak, I don’t have to address your points because unless they're relevant to the conversation I'm interested in having, there's no reason for me to participate.  There are lots of conversations on this site that I'm watching but I don't think are interesting enough to merit weighing in. 

Zak, you should be flattered that I think you're interesting.  I mean, you're only interesting because you are the singular metaphorically biggest asshole I've seen online - the only one whose pattern of behavior is so consistently predictable and toxic that I feel compelled[t/i] to warn everyone: you are an asshole.

Cheerio!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 06:39:28 PM
Like addressing your gish-gallops that contain neither a rebuttal nor a coherent point. 

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, "

I literally made one statement: that conflating "bad" and "not to my taste" was a rhetorical move responsible for pointless internet arguments.

That's not a gish gallop.

You are lying on the internet again.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on September 12, 2022, 06:53:03 PM

This is a forum.  It's an ongoing conversation.  I am NOT OBLIGATED to address all of your so-called 'points'.

Only if you want to claim your ideas are based on reason.

If you ware saying your ideas are not based in reason then just say that.

Failing to do either leaves us all with no legitimate reason for you to have said anything so you just wasted everyone's time.

classic dumbass rationalist behavior- quote only one line of your opponent's post, then act condescendingly.

If the entire thing you disagree about hinges on one inaccurate claim in that line, that's the right thing to do.

So, not dumb. Clear, simple, easy to follow.

Anything else would be wasting time.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/939/162/b61.png)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 12, 2022, 06:54:17 PM
[img]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/939/162/b61.png[/img
Only a troll would post that, so all your claims can now be ignored.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on September 12, 2022, 07:04:17 PM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/939/162/b61.png[/img
[/quote]
Only a troll would post that, so all your claims can now be ignored.
[/quote]


[img]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/939/162/b61.png)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 13, 2022, 09:35:15 AM
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/939/162/b61.png)
Only a troll would post that, so all your claims can now be ignored.

Who says?  You? 

Trying to bring levity to a conversation automatically makes someone a troll?  I thought it was someone who deliberately makes inaccurate statements to deliberately get a rise out of someone.  How many definitions are you using, Zak?  Am I right and your definition is 'anyone that disagrees with me about anything, ever'?  Because that seems to be the way you use it. 

Regarding 'Gish Gallop', I referred to your ongoing pattern of behavior of refusing to clearly state what your position is, and bring up a slew of apparently unrelated points, each of which can be addressed but it takes time, after which you proclaim that none of your points were ever addressed (therefore your 'opponents' were acting in bad faith and you're not obligated to respond in the future). 

But I do disagree that saying 'something is bad' is a good starting place, rather than 'this is not to my taste, and here is why'.  It's OBVIOUS and self evident if you use an example.  Saying 'Don't eat that mayonnaise, it's bad' is a much clearer statement than saying 'I would recommend you refrain from eating the mayonnaise - it's 3 months after the use by date, but that's just my recommendation as someone that tries to avoid foods that are not to my taste as someone who prefers fresh foods that taste fresh, but I actually don't know if it tastes bad and you might like it - I wasn't actually willing to eat it because I thought it smelled bad, but what is bad, anyway? You know what, you should try it and tell me if you like it, because maybe I've been too harsh with expressions about good or bad'.

Ultimately, I'm suggesting people follow your advice and ask clarifying questions.  If something is bad and it is obviously bad and you say it is bad, most people will look at the thing and because it is obvious, have no further questions.  But if they do, they can say something like 'it doesn't look bad' or 'what makes it bad' and THEN, you can go into the full details which would have been a waste of time if no one had any questions.  You know, like reasonable people do all the time. Each of us is not obligated to anticipate EVERY POSSIBLE QUESTION AND ANSWER IT IN ADVANCE.  Some of us opt to do so - in fact, that's frequently part of my job - so I'm less inclined to do that as part of my hobby time. 

Zak, you are an asshole.  The way you frequently dismiss anyone that doesn't want to follow what you claim are accepted practices of discussion when your rules are crazy is one of the many reasons you are an asshole.  You're free to make judgements about people, of course, just like I'm free to judge that you're an asshole.  But for one that keeps talking about 'standards of evidence', you dismissing someone as a troll for posting an amusing cartoon picture clearly doesn't meet most people's standards.  I know you'll claim 'there was only one possible interpretation' of that post, but if you had a shred of honesty you would have asked clarifying questions before making an accusation.  That's why I feel the sheer weight of evidence, allows me to call you an asshole, even if I had agreed to be bound by the rules that you insist apply to everyone other than you. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 13, 2022, 09:38:09 AM

Trying to bring levity to a conversation automatically makes someone a troll? 

No, making an accusation and then making a joke instead of engaging when your accusation is contested makes someone a troll.

As does making an accusation you won't back up.

But I do disagree that saying 'something is bad' is a good starting place, rather than 'this is not to my taste, and here is why'.  It's OBVIOUS and self evident if you use an example.

Simple example:

"The mayonnaise is bad" can be taken two different ways:

-It will harm your health if you eat it
-I don't like the taste

In the game sphere, conflating those two ideas (including because people aren't always in the position to ask clarifying questions) has objectively caused very serious harm to real people--so it doesn't serve the most important goal of RPG discussions (to get accurate and helpful RPG information to people while respecting their time as much as possible) to speak vaguely.


-

But this is just a conversation and we can easily keep having it in a civil way (as you should've done before).

The bad thing you did was not disagree, but refuse to have the conversation then, when the point was raised.

It wastes everyone's time, since you've just larded up a conversation with an idea that, once countered, you won't engage to support or refute:

-If you're right, you've just irresponsibly let every rational person who hasn't thought of all your reasons for believing what you do down. They now think the opposite of the truth because you failed to illuminate your reasons for your claim.
-If you're wrong, you've dishonestly failed to admit you were wrong.

That isn't a kind/respectful/empathetic thing to do to readers.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 13, 2022, 10:00:57 AM
Quote from: Zak S
Simple example:
"The mayonnaise is bad" can be taken two different ways:

-It will harm your health if you eat it
-I don't like the taste

Exactly!  It's almost like you understand.  Stating the point simply and letting the listener determine whether they have questions is an appropriate action.  In cases where there's trust, I will likely not eat something if someone tells me it tastes bad to them and I certainly won't eat it if it's spoiled.  Either way, it's my decision how to treat the warning. 

Quote from: Zak S
In the game sphere, conflating those two ideas has objectively caused very serious harm to real people--so it doesn't serve the most important goal of RPG discussions (to get accurate and helpful RPG information to people while respecting their time as much as possible) to speak vaguely.

Every conversation has to start somewhere.  Someone who tries something and doesn't like it may not be a sommelier with extensive vocabulary to explain why they didn't like it, but their opinion still has value.  If I accepted your position which I don't, there'd be no benefit to a 1-star review with no details.  I think we can agree that MORE DETAILS ARE GOOD, but if someone has a bad experience and all they have time for is 'I didn't like it', that's not completely worthless.  The better you know that person and/or the more familiar you are with their reviews, the more trust you'll put in it.  There are people that I trust enough to accept that if they can't recommend something, I'm unlikely to enjoy it, too.  That's not unfair - that's human nature. 

-
Quote from: Zak S
But this is just a conversation and we can easily keep having it in a civil way (as you should've done before).

No Zak, that's not a conversation I'm interested in having.  You're free to create a new thread to discuss what ever you like. But you created this thread to cast scorn upon the people that you perceive as enemies as you take a virtual victory lap after having caused damage to others by wielding the legal system against them.  While that was your legal right, and based on evidence presented you won, there's enough evidence in this thread to show that you're an asshole.  I joined this thread to have that conversation and that's the one that I'm interested in having. 

For reference, this was my first post:

Hey Zak! 

I'm firmly in the camp of 'you're an asshole'. I think you've proved it several times in this thread, and you've certainly proved it many other times and many other places.  But part of what makes you an asshole is that you like to demand that I go find multiple conversations and quote them here, then insist that I should have asked for clarification because you are not actually an asshole, and it's MY FAULT if I got that mistaken impression. 

Well, we can have an epistemological argument about whether or not it is possible to 'know' whether you're an asshole, but that doesn't sound fun to me.  Instead, I'll just go on telling people that I've interacted with you before and I felt that you came across as an asshole.  I always hope that other people choose to make their own impressions without relying exclusively on my judgement, but if they're asking for an opinion, I'll certainly give them my honest opinion - which I know you're in support of because you made the claim earlier in this thread that speaking the truth is paramount. 

If it makes you feel any better, my opinion carries very little weight with other posters on this forum.  In fact, many here might regard me calling you an asshole as a commendation of your personality instead.    But I'm not too worried about that - I'm pretty confident that if they keep engaging you in conversation they'll realize that I was right, and maybe they'll evaluate other positions where we've disagreed and make the realization that they were wrong there, too. 

I would hope it goes without saying that you shouldn't consider this harassment - you seem to have a burning need to know WHY people don't like you so I'm happy to share.  I don't make a habit of following you around and confronting you.  It's also not about whether any specific accusations leveled against you are correct or not - I can say that I thought you were an asshole before any allegations of abuse came out.  We could debate any number of situations you've factually been in and whether your specific actions would qualify as a 'yes' in any 'AITA' thread, but that would not be fun for me. 

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 13, 2022, 10:04:14 AM
To reiterate:

Quote
The bad thing you did was not disagree, but refuse to have the conversation then, when the point was raised.

It wastes everyone's time, since you've just larded up a conversation with an idea that, once countered, you won't engage to support or refute:

-If you're right, you've just irresponsibly let every rational person who hasn't thought of all your reasons for believing what you do down. They now think the opposite of the truth because you failed to illuminate your reasons for your claim.
-If you're wrong, you've dishonestly failed to admit you were wrong.

That isn't a kind/respectful/empathetic thing to do to readers.

The second you make a public accusation, it ceases to matter what conversation you want to have. You either participate in the conversation necessary to back it up, or you're doing something bad.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 13, 2022, 12:16:25 PM
The second you make a public accusation, it ceases to matter what conversation you want to have. You either participate in the conversation necessary to back it up, or you're doing something bad.

Are you saying that you don't think I have provided evidence that you're an asshole.  Because I assure you, I have. 

As far as your opinion of whether my actions are good or bad - I don't care.  I don't respect you, or your judgements.  I came here to (1) make sure you know that I think you're an asshole, and nothing you've said here has made me change my mind - in fact, your actions in this thread have clarified and strengthened my opinion in that regard; and (2) warn other people that you are an asshole, and you have a 'script' that you follow that is predictable and designed to force any conversation to follow your 'rules'. 

I've done both of those things, multiple times.  You may want me to FURTHER ENGAGE and talk about things that I either don't believe or don't care to talk about, but I don't OWE YOU THAT.  This forum exists to exchange ideas and to entertain RPG hobbyists.  I am not interested in your ideas, so my participation in this thread is primarily driven by my own entertainment.  There are times when I need to take a break from work, and knowing that I'm getting paid to call you an asshole delights me.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 13, 2022, 12:35:57 PM
The second you make a public accusation, it ceases to matter what conversation you want to have. You either participate in the conversation necessary to back it up, or you're doing something bad.

Are you saying that you don't think I have provided evidence that you're an asshole
No we're talking about your many verifiable false accusations (like the claim above that I did a "gish gallop") , not your silly opinions.

You're a liar and the fact you reject the idea you need to prove your fact claims makes that obvious.

Regardless of what you think a forum is "for" you are still speaking in public and spreading false accusations is defamation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 13, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
No we're talking about your many verifiable false accusations (like the claim above that I did a "gish gallop") , not your silly opinions.

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves.  It's not a false accusation, just one that you don't agree with.  I literally can't count how many times you've been accused of doing a 'gish gallop', but it is probably slightly less than you're accused of changing goal posts.  If you would clearly state your position on anything, maybe we could have the conversation you want to have. 

You're a liar and the fact you reject the idea you need to prove your fact claims makes that obvious.

Zak, I admit to being a mere mortal, capable of making mistakes.  I also believe that society works best when people tell 'white lies' like 'you look amazing in that dress' - sometimes a hurtful honest opinion is worse than forcing the truth on an unwilling recipient.  For that reason, I don't care that you call me a liar - for some definitions of the word, it's true.  But I'm not a pathological liar as you seem to be.  Sometimes someone that has told a lie also tells the truth.  When I say you are an asshole I am very confident that the statement is verifiably true (without external links - simply by reviewing THIS THREAD on THIS SITE).  I don't know or care what else you think I've lied about, but I assert that 'you didn't ask enough clarifying questions' (as you would do) since I did not deliberately speak a falsehood to you, I've just interpreted facts differently than you have.  [As a matter of personal opinion, I think I'm BETTER at interpreting facts, and you ALWAYS interpret them in a self-serving manner]. 


Regardless of what you think a forum is "for" you are still speaking in public and spreading false accusations is defamation.

So sue me.  I've told you I am willing to go to court specifically to determine whether I have enough evidence to convince a jury of your peers that you're an asshole.  I'm sure I do.  I don't know what 'false accusations' you think I'm spreading, but I want to be very clear - I am claiming you are an asshole as demonstrated by your behavior in this thread.  What other accusations (especially false ones) do you think I'm spreading?   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 13, 2022, 01:00:53 PM

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

This would be just one of the many false claims you'd have to prove in order to even pretend to be rational or an accurate source of information, including but not limited to:

-Your fantasy about tongue-shoving
-Claims of moving goal-posts
-Claims of not ever engaging in a good-faith conversation


Zak, I admit to being a mere mortal, capable of making mistakes.

Then the only good and honest thing to do is admit them.

And if the truth is in doubt, then the only good and honest thing to do is take every precaution to make sure your statements are true before making them--and after. Especially if they're about other people allegedly doing bad things.

Quote
  I also believe that society works best when people tell 'white lies' like 'you look amazing in that dress' -

Harmful misinformation about the victim of a harassment campaign you are participating in is not a "white lie". Falsely claiming an honest person isn't is not a "white lie".

So that's not relevant.


Quote
So sue me.

Ok:

Please send your full real name and address to zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 13, 2022, 02:12:19 PM

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't. I've pointed people to a place where they can review the multiple accusations that you were in the midst of a gish-gallop, and they can review the conversation and make their own determination.  Your definition, that you quoted above, references 'overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible'.  Proving that you initiated a gish-gallop would mean I would have to quote you  presenting an 'overwhelming number of arguments'.  I believe the accusation is true; I believe that people have the ability to verify the truth of the accusation with the information provided.  Now, while I maintain that basically 'all of your arguments' are bad, I don't know that they're without regard to accuracy.  Zak, I don't respect your intelligence, so I can't tell if you're deliberately lying or your narcissistic world-view skews your perceptions so strongly that you believe the crap you spew.  You make a lot of inaccurate claims, and you make so many claims at once; then when called on any specific one you switch to another; then later pick up the first one when the conversation has moved on and you appear to have forgotten that it was rebutted (and of course, you claim it never was).  For anyone attempting a good faith discussion it is exhausting.  Fortunately, I am not interested in a discussion; I do not need to refute your false claims; I do not need to explain why your 'rules' about how I have to do anything doesn't actually apply (but again, since I'm here for my own entertainment, I'll indulge you on occasion). 


This would be just one of the many false claims you'd have to prove in order to even pretend to be rational or an accurate source of information, including but not limited to:
-Your fantasy about tongue-shoving

Zak, you keep bringing this up.  This is one that actually has been refuted.  My real claim (in the post that you quoted) was:

Quote from: deaddmwalking
So ultimately, there's no reason to carry an instrument if it isn't in character for the character- whatever bullshit bonus you think you get from doing that is going to be available any one of a dozen other ways if you ask nicely.

After refusing to concede that only granting a bonus to diplomacy with an instrument would encourage people to play instruments if they wanted to be good at Diplomacy, you finally said:
Quote from: Zak S
Then there are a bajillion other things besides music this person can do to curry favor that would cost as much or less money and (in game and out) time to curry favor.

While I used a a parody of an example, reasonable people understood my point - that your stupid rule wouldn't cause problems because you were not limiting the application to the specific case (using an instrument).  And since I'm fine with people judging the full conversation in context, here's the entire quote.

Quote from: deaddmwalking
I read the blog post, and while I don't think much of the rule, one reason it isn't going to be a problem is that it was indicated that failing the Dex check would result in a penalty. 

If I want a bonus, and I have an action that can give me a bonus 50% of the time and a penalty 50% of the time, the only reason to perform that action is if I can't succeed without it.  As the chance of failure decreases, the benefit of attempting it increases, but there is still the potential cost of carrying around a fragile piece of equipment.

But further - there's no reason to do this, anyway.  Sure, player A might say 'If I play a really stirring emotional passage on my ocarina can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes.  And if player B says, 'if I stick my tongue down her throat and get her really hot, can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes. 

So ultimately, there's no reason to carry an instrument if it isn't in character for the character- whatever bullshit bonus you think you get from doing that is going to be available any one of a dozen other ways if you ask nicely.


-Claims of moving goal-posts

This is another one that would require dozens or hundreds of posts.  And when you're called on it you claim that people 'misunderstood' your position and they should have asked 'clarifying questions'.  In this thread (and others linked to), there are plenty of examples.  It is unduly burdensome for me to comprehensively catalog your responses where you appear to be arguing one thing, then later arguing another.  But as an exemplar of this, we can use the above discussion about musical instruments giving a bonus.  I asserted that you would give the bonus in dozens of situations, and rather than agreeing (like a reasonable person) you argued for pages before agreeing that you'd actually give it in a bajillion situations.  Now, nobody actually knows what those situations are because you've refused to catalog them, or even provide examples, but they APPEAR to be along the lines of my post.  Maybe kissing someone that seems to be romantically attracted to you (and if you didn't understand that was intended to be implied in the example maybe you should have asked clarifying questions - hard to argue that someone would get a Diplomacy bonus if you ATTACKED them) isn't on the list of bajillion things, but I can't think of anything close to a bajillion things that are.  And of course, by your definition, failure to list a bajillion things actually makes you a liar

-Claims of not ever engaging in a good-faith conversation
Saying 'I've never seen evidence of Bigfoot' doesn't mean that I have to provide exhaustive evidence that Bigfoot exists.  I've never seen evidence that you participate in conversations with good faith doesn't mean you don't - just that I haven't seen it.  In the conversations I've been involved in, you act like you're a victim, demean everyone around you, refuse to clarify what position you're arguing, and consistently refuse to respond to substantive portions of people's quotes and instead make attacks on minor points with personal attacks.  I've pointed out some of those ways in this very thread.  Eventually I got tired of posting quotes and links to the conversation(s) where I discovered this, in part because you like to pretend I never did that.  Well, I did.  For anyone that cares to look through 65+ pages of this conversation, they can see that.  And if they don't, that's fine, because there are enough examples without doing the research. 


Quote from: deaddmwalking
Zak, I admit to being a mere mortal, capable of making mistakes.

Then the only good and honest thing to do is admit them.
If they were relevant to the conversation, I would be happy to.  As I've said many times, I'm confident in my assessment that you are an asshole

And if the truth is in doubt, then the only good and honest thing to do is take every precaution to make sure your statements are true before making them--and after. Especially if they're about other people allegedly doing bad things.

This is why I've been very clear that my statements are on topic: you are an asshole.  What other bad things do you think I am 'alleging' you did? 

Regarding white lies, you seem to claim that if someone told a lie, even once, that they're a liar and that you can never accept anything they ever say (and also that they're a troll and should be denied life-giving care).  I don't agree with that.  As for telling a lie that is (a)known to be untrue and (b) hurtful to an individual, I don't think I've done that.  Regarding you being an asshole, I think that's a reasonable conclusion based on discussions I've seen you're involved with online.  Over and over I've pointed to evidence that supports that conclusion.  Your response appears to me to just be, 'I'm not an asshole so DDMW must be a liar, don't look at his evidence'.  That might work for you, but it's not going to convince many other people.  In any case, you seem to think that if you can show that I've spread misinformation that I'm a liar and that nothing I say could possibly be right.  That's not a valid logical argument.  Unless everything I say is a lie, than anything I say may either be the truth or a lie.  In that case, I'd be a normal human being and you'd have to use your powers of discernment to determine whether I'm being honest or not. 

You know one important piece of discernment is motive.  I've told you (and everyone else) why I'm here and why I think it's important to tell everyone you're an asshole.  What motivation do you think I have to lie?  Why wouldn't it make more sense to tell people something that is true, especially if I expect and rely on their ability to judge evidence themselves? 


Please send your full real name and address to zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm.

No, Zak.  You have other tools if you want to sue me.  I don't like you, and I'm not interested in communicating with you outside of this thread.  Being sued would be a pain in the ass for me, but I'm willing to endure it to get the satisfaction of a court of law agreeing that I'm not guilty of defamation because you are, in fact, demonstrably, an asshole.  So yes, you can cause a significant amount of disruption to me, but not without also doing a lot of work on your part.  Of course, it'd be hard to show any damages since, according to you, it's already been done.  You appear to like to use the threat of lawsuits as a tool to shut people down because you are an asshole.  That's one reason that I'm willing to be the one to call you an asshole.  I'm not afraid of being sued.  I'd RATHER NOT BE, but the threat of a lawsuit is not sufficient to cause me to desist.  So Zak, this whole thread started because you went for the 'nuclear option' of suing people, demonstrating that you're willing to do exactly that.  That has a chilling effect on people's free expression of their personal opinion of you, at least, it does for most people.  As I've said before, I'm very fortunate in many ways - you don't scare me.   But it's important to me that we maintain the principle of reciprocity.  If you want me to do a lot of work to defend myself in a court of law, it's only fair that you do a lot of work to move forward.  Subpoena my IP address, you know, all that discovery work - if you're very confident in your case, I'm sure you'll have no trouble justifying the time and expense.  And bonus for me - all that time you're spending on this is time you're NOT spending on being an asshole everywhere else.  :)   

PS
Zak, I'm pretty confident that you'll have a reply in 2-3 minutes.  I am confident that I will have a response to you in due time.  But I'm afraid I've dedicated just about as much time today as I can afford.  I'll look forward to getting back to you tomorrow or the next day. 


Edit - Fixed a quote tag and add a P.S.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 13, 2022, 03:10:27 PM

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't.

Again, burden of proof fallacy.

Because you're lying.

You're not a reliable source of information.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on September 13, 2022, 05:09:49 PM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 13, 2022, 06:25:17 PM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

I've missed you Tubesock! :)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 13, 2022, 06:29:10 PM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

Asking whether what someone claims to be first-strike aggression is a first strike aggression isn't moving goalposts, it's clarification.

Claiming it's moving goalposts is another lie, and more proof you aren't honest.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: MeganovaStella on September 13, 2022, 10:12:52 PM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...
[/quote

Asking whether what someone claims to be first-strike aggression is a first strike aggression isn't moving goalposts, it's clarification.

Claiming it's moving goalposts is another lie, and more proof you aren't honest.

wow, i guess that wojak post was accurate huh
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Tubesock Army on September 14, 2022, 09:13:32 AM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

I've missed you Tubesock! :)

Thanks brotha! Nice to see you, too!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 14, 2022, 09:32:24 AM

That part about 'basic illiteracy' is an insult....

This all appear to be very old, which is fine, but we'll need to establish order-of-events to understand what you're on about:

Was this before or after your false claim about your tongue-shoving?

Zak moving goalposts, imagine my surprise...

I've missed you Tubesock! :)

Thanks brotha! Nice to see you, too!

Things are still as bonkers as ever!  ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 15, 2022, 11:36:34 AM
Zak,

I am disappointed that knowing you'd have 1-2 days to respond, the best you could come up with is 'liar liar, pants on fire'.  That's only barely a step below 'I know you are but what am I'.  Your juvenile insults are beneath even you, but I do admit, they would appear as good cover for my asserted claim you are an asshole.  Someone so completely immature would have trouble rising to the level of competence required to be an asshole.  Since you're not a naive 14-year-old, I'll just add immature to my list of insults to go with asshole.

Asking whether what someone claims to be first-strike aggression is a first strike aggression isn't moving goalposts, it's clarification.

Zak, one reason that you're so often accused of moving goal posts is that you IMPLY that you would accept something as proof, but never actually state it.  When they finally rise to the bait of proving something you implied you believed, you insist that it wasn't relevant to begin with.  I've asked you this straight out before - if you made an unprovoked attack, does that make you an asshole?  Or a troll?  Or a liar?  Or a person that doesn't even deserve medical treatment in a life-or-death emergency?  Because you have implied it over and over, but not actually said it straight out.

OR

If someone says mean things about other people AFTER provoking, is that a perfect defense?  When Cartman murders your parents, cooks them into a chili, and licks up your salty tears, is that justified if someone else started it?  Or would you agree that there's some principle of 'proportional response' that applies? 

I really want to know because either way, I have sufficient evidence to prove you're an asshole.  I just don't know which one you believe.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 15, 2022, 03:30:23 PM
Zak, one reason that you're so often accused of moving goal posts is that you IMPLY that you would accept something as proof, but never actually state it.

Since it's been repeatedly proved that you lie, for example here:

Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't.

Again, burden of proof fallacy.

Because you're lying.

You're not a reliable source of information.

...it doesn't really matter what you think "implies" something else.

I am responsible for what I say, not for what your guess or claim is.

Quote
if you made an unprovoked attack, does that make you an asshole?
Yes.

That's something you repeatedly do and I didn't.

Quote
  Or a troll?
Depends on the nature of the attack. If you shoot someone that isn't really "trolling" it's just murder.

Quote
  Or a liar?
If the attack involves a lie, then it makes you a liar

Quote
  Or a person that doesn't even deserve medical treatment in a life-or-death emergency?
Depends what you did. I'd say Hitler didn't.

Quote
  Because you have implied it over and over, but not actually said it straight out.

Who cares? If you're unsure, just ask.

Quote
If someone says mean things about other people AFTER provoking, is that a perfect defense?

"provoking" is yet another category, and I don't know what you consider "provoking".Who is provoking? By doing what?

You're derailing from the morally important thing which is dishonesty, to "mean things".

Do you understand that "lying" and "saying mean things" are two different things?

The most important thing is you're not honest. Here's some of the extensive proof of that again in case anyone missed it:


Zak, I've given links where people can review conversations where you were accused of a 'gish gallop', and judge the evidence for themselves. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, ..."

You have to prove I have no regard for accuracy, or else admit your claim has no rational basis.

No Zak, I don't.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 15, 2022, 09:03:33 PM
Nobody reads your eye-cancer posts, asshole.  And since I did show that you attacked me before I insulted you, you've tacitly agreed that you are an asshole.  Progress. 

As for calling me a liar, I don’t care.  I think everyone has lied in one way or another, so it's no more insulting than calling someone a human.   It matters if you're lying about the subject of discussion (like caught IN A LIE but I'm not lying when I call you an asshole. 

I'm probably lying when I say something like 'I'm starting to feel bad about calling you an asdhole when I start to think that you have real and deep-seated psychological problems and you should really see a professional psychologist'.  To be clear, I'm not lying when I say you should seek help, just the part about feeling bad.  I feel good when I call you an asshole.  I'll stop doing it when that changes.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 16, 2022, 12:42:04 AM
Nobody reads your eye-cancer posts, asshole.  And since I did show that you attacked me before I insulted you, you've tacitly agreed that you are an asshole

No I didn't.

You made the first attack, as demonstrated:

You falsely claimed I got something wrong.

I pointed out your mistake.

You didn't admit it, or even engage.

That's you attacking me. If you'd engaged, you might be able to claim it was constructive criticism, but you didn't--so it's just an attack. That's our first interaction.

But, more importantly: you're dishonest.

Whether or not you care that you're dishonest it's important everyone else know so that they don's accidentally believe any of the claims you make here.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 16, 2022, 12:25:15 PM
You made the first attack, as demonstrated:

You falsely claimed I got something wrong.

I pointed out your mistake.

You didn't admit it, or even engage.

That's you attacking me. If you'd engaged, you might be able to claim it was constructive criticism, but you didn't--so it's just an attack. That's our first interaction.

Wait, you're legitimately claiming that me not saying anything to you is an attack?  That would be the most unique definition of attack I've ever seen. 

Similarly, your definition of 'liar' is extremely broad and would seem to apply equally to everyone.  As a result, I don't think it's relevant.  Even if I am a 'liar', which I don't think really applies, but ultimately, doesn't bother me as a label, it doesn't logically follow that everything I say is a lie.  More importantly, I have provided almost as much evidence in support of my position as you have.  Since I believe in the intelligence of my audience and don't believe in telling them that they're 'illogical to believe things' that you don't want them to believe, I remain satisfied with letting them draw their own conclusions.  It's in that vein that I am explaining why your argument that 'deaddmwalking can't be trusted' is extremely weak - I'm not ASKING anyone to trust me, and any belief you have (based on a very difficult to comprehend world-view) that I'm dishonest really just becomes a question of validating the source which is what I want.  I mean, I'd also kinda of enjoy you admitting that you're an asshole, but ultimately, I'm satisfied with you having shown it so often in this very thread, so I'm okay with what I have, rather than a pithy summary quote that I could bring up whenever you come up.  I mean, it'd certainly be easier if I could say, 'According to Zak S, he's an asshole, here's the quote'.  But that's just helpful for people that meet you for the first time; I think mostly there's enough people that are aware of you being an asshole now, that those people are likely to receive a warning early.  It's not all on my shoulders. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 16, 2022, 12:35:21 PM

Wait, you're legitimately claiming that me not saying anything to you is an attack

No, claiming I was wrong without justification is an attack.

If you drive past a crowd on the street, point at someone and yell "That guy kicked a dog!" and they go "What? When? No I didn't!" and you just drive off, that's an attack.

More importantly, I have provided almost as much evidence in support of my position as you have. 
It's not a contest: Burden of proof is on the accuser.

You accused me, repeatedly--the burden of proving I did something wrong is on you.

You have repeatedly refused to provide that proof.

Since you claim what I did wrong was on the internet(and you clearly are still capable of typing), there is no possible excuse, and no explanation other than you're lying in your claims I did something wrong.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 16, 2022, 12:47:35 PM
You accused me, repeatedly--the burden of proving I did something wrong is on you.

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong.  I'm claiming that you're an asshole.  I mean, I am saying I don't like you and I think there are good reasons why other people shouldn't like you either, but being an asshole isn't doing something wrong. 

Like, read The Scorpion and the Frog.  You're going to act in your nature and I don't have to like it, but it's not wrong.  It'd be wrong of me (and probably anyone else) to expect you to act differently. 

This is not a conversation of good versus evil, or retribution and revenge.  This is about my opinion that you're an asshole.  It boggles the mind that we're 60+ pages into this conversation (roughly 40+ since I joined) and you don't understand what an asshole even is.  It would be easier if you stopped trying to understand and just looked in a mirror. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 16, 2022, 12:51:34 PM

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

You've repeatedly claimed I was dishonest in a variety of ways, for example the "gish gallop" (see above on this page) as well as making a number of other false accusations throughout the thread.

So even in this comment you are lying in an easily provable way. It's all recorded.

You are not a reliable source of information.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 16, 2022, 03:41:00 PM
You've repeatedly claimed I was dishonest in a variety of ways, for example the "gish gallop" (see above on this page) as well as making a number of other false accusations throughout the thread.

A gish-gallop could imply you said a bunch of things that are incorrect, misleading or false and possibly that you didn't even believe, but I don't think it rises to the level of calling you 'dishonest'.  I mean, I think you're disingenuous, and that's certainly in the ballpark.  But I don't have to call you dishonest to point out that you engage with people like an asshole.  The primary reason you are an asshole is because you make accusations without support, but then demand that everyone who makes an accusation not only support it, but support it to your very unreasonable standard.  My accusation ultimately doesn't matter if you're dishonest or not; it doesn't matter if you're arguing in good faith or not. Just because I think you're a lying twat and you're acting in bad-faith (please note, those are my personal opinions and I'm not actually making this as an accusation) has nothing to do with you also being an asshole.  Like, I also think you're almost certainly a narcissist and I've pointed out some of the symptoms that you appear to exhibit.  But actually accusing you??  I'm not a psychologist and if I were, I'd have to meet with you in person to responsibly offer a diagnosis.  So while I THINK you probably are, I'm not ACCUSING you of being one. 

But yeah, in addition to warning people that you're an asshole, it'd probably be appropriate to be even more candid in my personal assessment of your multiple personality deficiencies.  You might call it shit-flinging, but a lot of people enjoy watching what they think is a well-deserved put-down, asshole

I remain surprised that you keep encouraging me to keep posting.  We're only up to result #10 for 'Zak S, asshole' in Google Search.  With your help, we'll be up to #1 in another 60 pages or so. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 16, 2022, 04:02:21 PM

A gish-gallop could imply you said a bunch of things that are incorrect, misleading or false and possibly that you didn't even believe...


Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

You can't even keep your own lies straight.

You're not a reliable source of information.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 16, 2022, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking
Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

You can't even keep your own lies straight.

You keep trying to accuse me of ascribing moral weight to your actions.  Talking about what's right and wrong is a philosophical discussion and ultimately, irrelevant.  I don't care if you think you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing - I care about the impact your actions have on others.  What you call 'wrong' I call being an asshole.  I don't care if you think you're justified or not - it's clear that you think you are - but the actual IMPACT ON OTHER PEOPLE doesn't actually depend on whether you're honestly deluded into believing that you're an innocent victim who is always being attacked first.  It's not TRUE, but even if it was, you'd still be an asshole.  You'd just have justified that behavior to yourself and some others...not me, though.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 16, 2022, 04:58:56 PM
I don't care if you think you're justified or not - it's clear that you think you are - but the actual IMPACT ON OTHER PEOPLE ...

The impact on other people is:

I did the right thing and it pissed off some trolls.

Bad people often are pissed off when people do good things, especially when that includes pointing out the bad person did a bad thing.

Anyway, you're not a reliable source of information, here's proof:


A gish-gallop could imply you said a bunch of things that are incorrect, misleading or false and possibly that you didn't even believe...


Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on September 25, 2022, 03:32:12 PM
You've repeatedly claimed I was dishonest in a variety of ways, for example the "gish gallop" (see above on this page) as well as making a number of other false accusations throughout the thread.

A gish-gallop could imply you said a bunch of things that are incorrect, misleading or false and possibly that you didn't even believe, but I don't think it rises to the level of calling you 'dishonest'.  I mean, I think you're disingenuous, and that's certainly in the ballpark.  But I don't have to call you dishonest to point out that you engage with people like an asshole.  The primary reason you are an asshole is because you make accusations without support, but then demand that everyone who makes an accusation not only support it, but support it to your very unreasonable standard.  My accusation ultimately doesn't matter if you're dishonest or not; it doesn't matter if you're arguing in good faith or not. Just because I think you're a lying twat and you're acting in bad-faith (please note, those are my personal opinions and I'm not actually making this as an accusation) has nothing to do with you also being an asshole.  Like, I also think you're almost certainly a narcissist and I've pointed out some of the symptoms that you appear to exhibit.  But actually accusing you??  I'm not a psychologist and if I were, I'd have to meet with you in person to responsibly offer a diagnosis.  So while I THINK you probably are, I'm not ACCUSING you of being one. 

But yeah, in addition to warning people that you're an asshole, it'd probably be appropriate to be even more candid in my personal assessment of your multiple personality deficiencies.  You might call it shit-flinging, but a lot of people enjoy watching what they think is a well-deserved put-down, asshole

I remain surprised that you keep encouraging me to keep posting.  We're only up to result #10 for 'Zak S, asshole' in Google Search.  With your help, we'll be up to #1 in another 60 pages or so.

What is your endgame here?  You hide behind your screen name, because to you this is just entertainment "You might call it shit-flinging, but a lot of people enjoy watching what they think is a well-deserved put-down" and you really have no stake in anything.  Zak is here as himself, defending himself. You claim that he makes accusations with out support when he repeatedly puts his support in his replies.  I jumped on because I like his work, and would like to see more in print, and I have seen him say that it will not happen until the community steps up -
(
From the LotFP Facebook page
Zak Smith
To say it again: "If you want it to go to print you have to go to an RPG forum besides this one and post about it. I am not going to invite all of the people who destroyed my life to destroy it more by doing a print release unless the RPG community steps up and shows a spine. Otherwise it is not worth it for any amount of money. If I just wanted money I could lots of things besides make games.".)

So I am here stepping up, what's your deal?  Just want to keep me from getting any new content in print?  Seems selfish to me.
Also, sorry if I quoted things wrong on here or anything, I don't really get how the formatting works, just wanted to get that out there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 25, 2022, 06:01:27 PM
So I am here stepping up, what's your deal?  Just want to keep me from getting any new content in print?  Seems selfish to me.

Hey, sombodystolemyname. 

I'm sure you'll agree that we're all entitled to our opinions.  My opinion is that Zak S. is an asshole.  There's almost 40 pages of me explaining why I think he's an asshole

I don't buy his work, and I don't care whether he chooses to produce RPG content or not.  That said, if you enjoy someone's work, I understand why you'd be legitimately disappointed when a creator chooses not to create because they're being unfairly attacked.

That said, I don't think I've been unfair.  Personally, if Zak S. chooses not to produce content because I think he's an asshole, I think he's giving me entirely too much power.  But I also think that it is a new point in support of my position that I hadn't brought up before. 

In previous conversations with Zak S, he would say something crazy, then demand that we reach out to 'his girls' to bring them into the conversation.  It was clear to everyone that 'reaching out to people' that are not involved in a conversation and demanding that they weigh in would count as a form of harassment, and wouldn't have been appropriate.  Of course they're free (as you are) to jump in to a conversation that they're interested in, but forcing other people to fight your battles isn't nice

There are a lot of 'creatives' that have amazing work, but they're also 'not nice'.  How many actors have been involved in cases of domestic or sexual assault?  How many singers have been involved with cases of sex with minors?  If you think that Zak S is a creative with work you want to see, you should tell him that.  I was never interested in his creative work, but I have interacted with him.  He has consistently shown himself to be an asshole - not only when dealing with me, but with others, too.  Basically, if you DARE to disagree with him, I expect him to be an asshole to you, too.  It would certainly fit the pattern. 

So I'm sorry that my choice to express my opinion has negative consequences for you - I don't know you and I don't bear you any ill will - but I'm not sorry that I've chosen to express my opinions.  Zak S. doesn't have to PUNISH YOU for my choices - if that's what he chooses to do, I think that's a dick move, and therefore, I reaffirm my position that Zak S. is an asshole

Now, I have told Zak many times that I've said what I wanted to say where I wanted to say it.  This corner of the internet is part of the Pundit's PRIVATE FORUM.  I am not going to other forums to tell Zak that I think he's an asshole. 

On page 25, in the middle of being an asshole, Zak said;

Whoever summoned shitmuffin: let this be a lesson learned, don't do it.

To shitmuffin: fuck you, you're a psychotic asshole who does nothing but talk out his ass. That there is anyone willing to give your narcissistic bullshit the time of day at this point frankly surprises me.

And as I said the last time you reared your disgusting face: don't fucking quote me, you worthless fucking shitstain, or otherwise address me directly. You are a fucking blight, and nothing you say is of any value.

Prove it.

I saw him bullying people (not me, because I hadn't been in the conversation up to this point - the above quote is just one example) so I decided to weigh in:

Hey Zak! 

I'm firmly in the camp of 'you're an asshole'. I think you've proved it several times in this thread, and you've certainly proved it many other times and many other places.  But part of what makes you an asshole is that you like to demand that I go find multiple conversations and quote them here, then insist that I should have asked for clarification because you are not actually an asshole, and it's MY FAULT if I got that mistaken impression. 

Well, we can have an epistemological argument about whether or not it is possible to 'know' whether you're an asshole, but that doesn't sound fun to me.  Instead, I'll just go on telling people that I've interacted with you before and I felt that you came across as an asshole.  I always hope that other people choose to make their own impressions without relying exclusively on my judgement, but if they're asking for an opinion, I'll certainly give them my honest opinion - which I know you're in support of because you made the claim earlier in this thread that speaking the truth is paramount. 

If it makes you feel any better, my opinion carries very little weight with other posters on this forum.  In fact, many here might regard me calling you an asshole as a commendation of your personality instead.    But I'm not too worried about that - I'm pretty confident that if they keep engaging you in conversation they'll realize that I was right, and maybe they'll evaluate other positions where we've disagreed and make the realization that they were wrong there, too. 

I would hope it goes without saying that you shouldn't consider this harassment - you seem to have a burning need to know WHY people don't like you so I'm happy to share.  I don't make a habit of following you around and confronting you.  It's also not about whether any specific accusations leveled against you are correct or not - I can say that I thought you were an asshole before any allegations of abuse came out.  We could debate any number of situations you've factually been in and whether your specific actions would qualify as a 'yes' in any 'AITA' thread, but that would not be fun for me. 

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

I think calling someone out on their bullshit is important.  Zak also seems to think that it's important.  The big difference is, if you decide that I'm a terrible person and you don't like me (or *gasp* that I'm an asshole), I'm capable of letting that go.  Not everyone has to like me.  Zak appears to harbor some deeply held narcissistic tendencies - choosing to reorder how he lives his life because he thinks that EVERYONE WHO LIKES HIS WORK is spineless unless they come fight his battles is some messed up shit.  From my perspective, that's typical Zak S, and that's why I think he's an asshole.  I know that everyone has different standards and different tolerances for this type of behavior, so I understand that you might disagree - but I think if you looked at the posts in this thread from a 'reasonable person' standard, you'd see plenty of evidence that someone MIGHT come to the conclusion that Zak S. is an asshole, just as I have done.  I also have SEVERAL MORE conversations that I've engaged in with Zak BEFORE THIS that led me to that position. 

If you've been lucky enough to only engage with Zak when EVERYONE agrees with him, there's a good chance you haven't seen the types of behaviors that I'm talking about.  I think we all know someone that WE THOUGHT was cool until a specific situation occurred and you decided not to spend time with them because 'omg they're fucking crazy'. 

Now, there are lots of good reasons for people WITH SPINES to decide NOT to defend everyone they know, whether the attacks are warranted or not.  Nobody has to spend any more time having conversations online than they're willing to spend.  Discussing the hobby is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.  For that reason, I hope that you, sombodystolemyname, feel that coming here and posting is a valuable use of your time. 

That said, I didn't have to call Zak an asshole anymore until/unless we go to the next page, but if someone wants to know why I think Zak S. is an asshole, I'm happy to share. 

"Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others."
-Otto von Bismark

I think it's a mistake to engage with Zak, and I think that warning people in advance is a valuable service.  If you disagree, I encourage you to use your platform(s) and join 'Team Zak S'.  But I'd caution you - there are a lot of people who were once very close to Zak that don't have a relationship anymore.  It's possible that every one of those failed relationships involved Zak as an innocent victim, but I'd point out that the one thing they all had in common was Zak - that kinda implies that he's at least part of the problem.  If I were in your position I'd probably try telling Zak that I love his work and I think he should make more of it - but that going and engaging with a 'nobody' on the internet just isn't worth his time or even a second thought.  That's a healthy way to live your life.  I happen to know that Zak isn't capable of doing the mature thing, and while I admit that needling him is a truly petty revenge, I do enjoy it. 

There's nothing like the anticipation for Zak's next reply for the 30 seconds after I hit post before he slavers an incoherent and irate response that proves my point he claims to be responding to.  I invite you to hang out, watch for a little while, and make up your own mind about whether I'm right or not.  But hey, even if Zak is an asshole, that doesn't mean you can't enjoy his work.   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 25, 2022, 08:49:49 PM
Nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof:


I saw him bullying people

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: ScytheSong on September 25, 2022, 09:47:48 PM
Nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof:


I saw him bullying people

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that "bullying people" is the same as "doing something wrong"? I mean, I think bullying people is asshole behaviour, but is not always doing something wrong.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 25, 2022, 09:52:11 PM
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that "bullying people" is the same as "doing something wrong"?

Bullying people is one kind of doing something wrong.

Bullying is unfairly using power over someone to harm them. If you don't see that as bad that's weird but you do you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 25, 2022, 09:53:20 PM
I mean, I think bullying people is asshole behaviour, but is not always doing something wrong.

That's a truly moronic statement...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: ScytheSong on September 25, 2022, 09:55:24 PM
So no one else here has been bullied into doing the right thing? You all use the language wierd.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on September 25, 2022, 09:56:27 PM
You all use the language wierd.

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 26, 2022, 10:07:10 AM
Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that "bullying people" is the same as "doing something wrong"?

Bullying people is one kind of doing something wrong.

Bullying is unfairly using power over someone to harm them. If you don't see that as bad that's weird but you do you.

Saying 2+2 is 5 is wrong.  There's a right answer and a wrong answer, and it's very clear when something is right and when something is wrong.

When we discuss human action, it's not clear that we're adding 2 + 2 to get 'punch this guy in the face'.  Given the same situation based on their background and expectations, some people are going to read that situation differently.  It's easy to say 'he was wrong to hit him' - but it's also easy to say 'that guy deserved what he got'.  In those cases, people are applying different values.  Now, sometimes applying those values equates to doing something illegal.  But I think we can all agree that there are cases where even the legal system creates a 'miscarriage of justice'. 

So when you're an asshole to me, but you're acting within your legal rights, you're not doing something wrong as far as I'm concerned.  You're just choosing to be an asshole. 

Now other people like to take the position that they're the ultimate arbiter of moral value and they can paint people broadly based on a single action. 

I don't.  But that'd be sort of a foreign position for Zak:

Quote from: Zak S
(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 26, 2022, 10:10:50 AM
To repeat:
Nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof:


I saw him bullying people

Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 26, 2022, 10:34:37 AM
To repeat:
Nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof:


I saw him bullying people



Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

Did you just skip over the section where I explained why I don't think that bullying people = doing something wrong? 

Maybe I'll try another approach. 

When you shoot someone in the face, it's easy to say 'that's wrong'.  In most cases, it is!  But there are a lot of cases where shooting someone in the face is agreed as the appropriate course of action - when your life is in imminent danger and using lethal-force is necessary to avoid it, when the life of another is in imminent danger and lethal force is necessary to avoid it, when you're at war and your country needs you to defend the lives of all your mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and others at home.  Those are cases where the normal calculus doesn't work. 

Now, terms like 'bullying' are subjective, just like asshole.  Of course I don't think you should be a bully, just like I think you shouldn't be an asshole.  If I thought you SHOULD be doing those things, I wouldn't be here making sure you KNOW I think you're an asshole

So once again, your quote doesn't really support your position.  Of course, if you were applying the same rules of debate to yourself that you demand from others, you would have looked at the apparent contradiction and asked for clarification.  Demanding that others follow rules that you don't, yourself, makes you an asshole
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 26, 2022, 11:00:59 AM

While deaddmwalking wants everyone to know very badly about his various emotions about me, all anyone who isn't deaddmwalking needs to know is that deaddmwalking is not an accurate source of information.

Here's the proof:

Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that "bullying people" is the same as "doing something wrong"?

Bullying people is one kind of doing something wrong.

Bullying is unfairly using power over someone to harm them. If you don't see that as bad that's weird but you do you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on September 26, 2022, 12:24:28 PM
Hey asshole, I think you used the wrong quote.  That's you talking to someone else. And as you like to say, that point was 'refuted'.

But we're on a new page, so once again, I feel compelled to explain why you're an asshole.  I'm going to put together a bunch of earlier responses to provide a full, easily accessible summary.

I'm firmly in the camp of 'you're an asshole'. I think you've proved it several times in this thread, and you've certainly proved it many other times and many other places.  But part of what makes you an asshole is that you like to demand that I go find multiple conversations and quote them here, then insist that I should have asked for clarification because you are not actually an asshole, and it's MY FAULT if I got that mistaken impression.

Well, we can have an epistemological argument about whether or not it is possible to 'know' whether you're an asshole, but that doesn't sound fun to me.  Instead, I'll just go on telling people that I've interacted with you before and I felt that you came across as an asshole.  I always hope that other people choose to make their own impressions without relying exclusively on my judgement, but if they're asking for an opinion, I'll certainly give them my honest opinion - which I know you're in support of because you made the claim earlier in this thread that speaking the truth is paramount.

I'm not Tubesock Army, or Geekybugle, or any number of other people that have called you an ass, but I did call you an ass and I don't feel that I've taken the appropriate amount of time to explain why you're an ass.

Now, for normal people with normal intelligence speaking their native language it's usually enough to point out when someone is doing something anti-social and say 'what an asshole' and everyone around with functioning normal intelligence can agree with the sentiment.

Saying an unpopular thing doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  Saying something rude also doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  But tone definitely matters - if you're extremely polite even when you're disagreeing with someone they probably WON'T call you an asshole.  So let's dive in - what, specifically, makes Zak S. an asshole - in fact - so much so that I'm willing to spend precious minutes of my life that I won't get back calling him one to his face?

I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds.

Of course, it's not just limited to demanding clarification.  The same also applies regarding standards of evidence.  You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference.  Even in a court of law (as you should NO DOUBT BE FAMILIAR BY NOW) witnesses can detail what they've seen as well as the inferences they made.  If asked whether the man walking down the street with a shotgun APPEARED hostile, a reasonable person could conclude that the act of walking with a loaded weapon pointed at bystanders meets that definition - you don't HAVE to be able to read the person's mind or attribute a direct quote of hostile intent to make the inference.  Since you're NOT a dummy (even though you ARE an asshole) you can't pretend that people, usually with high accuracy, can evaluate the demeanor and positions of those they interact with.

In this regard, having different criteria for 'accuracy' also applies.  In a conversation about granting bonuses to a specific skill I provided an exemplar of the type of argument that a player would use that was consistent with the types of things you said.  Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).  A normal person would have said something like 'I do like to say yes, but that specific example would be offensive to my players, so that's not one I would grant.  Instead I would suggest something that the character COULD do that would be more acceptable to get that same bonus'.  But later you said that a 'bajillion' things could grant that bonus.  That's of course a figurative phrase.  Can you literally think of a million or a billion things that could grant a bonus (obviously excluding a kiss)?  Of course not.  But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar.

When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors, that makes you an asshole.  For myself, spending time with assholes is something I generally try to avoid.  I certainly never seek you out, Zak S.  But when you take the trouble to cross my path, coming to the places I hang out, and you ask why people think you're an asshole, I think you deserve an answer.  And because you make the lives of the people you interact with worse just by being you, I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.  It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it.

You're an asshole.

But you can always make the choice to stop.

Responding to a post is not the same as rebutting it.  No where in your response did you say that you treat people with reciprocity - effectively you did a combination of saying that I was wrong to come to the conclusions that I did and that I am the one lying.  Well, Karen, that's the thing - people who are assholes always feel that they're justified in the moment, but the reason people come to a consensus opinion is that some actions only become unreasonable as it impacts everyone else around them.  For example, ordering 150 venti white chocolate mochas (hot) from Starbucks is something that you absolutely can do.  But if you do it during the morning rush in the drive-thru and refuse to move from the window until your order is complete, people will call you an asshole.  Please understand, that is not saying that anyone did anything ILLEGAL, but it still makes you an asshole.  So why?  That brings us to the next point - consideration.

This is closely related to reciprocity - if you talk about treating people the way you want to be treated you probably are hitting both consideration and reciprocity.  But a lot of wise people say rather than treating people the way YOU want to be treated, you should treat people the way THEY want to be treated.  That's consideration in a nutshell.

As far as how you show a lack of consideration, it shows primarily when you try to tell people that they're wrong to hold an opinion. As someone that has managed people, I understand that rather than addressing ATTITUDE, it's best to focus on BEHAVIOR.  Telling Shark that it's weird he agreed with a post that I wrote after it had been 'answered' shows a lack of consideration.  Essentially, you're implying that his ability to come to reasonable positions based on data is suspect.  Telling people how they think or SHOULD THINK is a level of hubris that rises to the level of 'asshole' almost automatically.

And let's be clear - there are a lot of people that hold opinions that I think are crazy, stupid, and wrong.  I do spend time trying to provide evidence and cogent arguments in support of my positions - I want to convince people to accept my positions.  But I don't try to pretend that they're automatically idiots for holding a position different than my own.  Not only do they have other evidence that I have to review and engage with, they may value my evidence differently.

It's clear that you value your own words - you pretend that they're the final word on any subject - but not everyone else feels that way, nor should they.  There are people that will dismiss you because of your occupation, the quality of your artistic work, the cut of your hair - and that can feel unfair - but just because those people exist doesn't mean that everyone else is dismissing you shallow reasons.  Some people engage with you and your ideas, give them a fair chance, and still come to the conclusion that you're an asshole.  What's STRIKING is how many people like your artistic output and STILL think you're an asshole.  People are weird in that they'll go to great lengths to defend terrible people that produce works that they like - when even fans won't defend your behavior that should be a sign that you're well beyond what normal people accept as 'normal behavior'.

So for myself, I still think you're an asshole.  I hope you keep talking and responding, because the more you do, I think the more clear you make that for everyone else reading along.  That means less work for me trying to review conversations across dozens of pages that are impossible to easily quote and risk losing vital context.

Personally, I think asshole is more descriptive than dick.  Fortunately for me, I remain free to assert that I think you're an asshole; I remain free to assert that nothing you've said in this thread would even qualify as an attempt to convince me otherwise.  Being charitable, everything you've said really amounts to 'poisoning the well' - casting doubt on my ability to be honest and forthright thus casting doubt on my conclusions.  Of course, that can only work if I was trying to convince anyone else of anything.  I expect that other people will have come to the conclusion that you're an asshole, but not because of what I said.  I just want you, Zak S., to KNOW that I think you're an asshole.  Since you're so insistent that we're honest with each other, and withholding relevant information could be seen as lying, I just felt it was very important to make sure you knew how I feel.

You are toxic.  I, personally, am in a very good place.  As a result, I feel that I can address you without feeling demeaned or sullied by your well documented argumentative tells.  I'm would not be surprised if you would like to destroy me (or see me come to ruin) because of your spiteful and vengeful ways (see: asshole).  I get the feeling that you want to intimidate people from stating their opinions when you feel that they're negative.  You're probably much more familiar than I am with libel and slander.  But I feel confident that if giving a deposition in court I could make a credible argument that you act like an asshole and that someone that acts like an asshole is, in fact, an asshole.  While I might be mistaken, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people want to tell you that you're an asshole, but they don't want to deal with you and your scorched earth reactions after they do.  Whether those people exist or not, I'm willing to tell you what I think if for no other reason than it needs to be said.

I know that you've had conversations multiple times along these lines, and that the behavior hasn't changed.  I do want people to make up their own minds - just because I don't like you doesn't mean that you might not be someone else's best friend in the world - but I also think that people deserve a warning when someone's behavior rises to a level that can be dangerous to others.

My advice to anyone who happens on this thread is that they should avoid you, Zak S.  That's not a decision I want to make for them, but I think between us we've certainly given them enough reason to be cautious.  So, mission accomplished.

Zak S., you're an asshole because of consistency of behavior.  I make a lot of allowances for other people.  Sometimes someone acts like a jerk but they didn't mean to.  Everyone has a bad day.  Sometimes they legitimately weren't aware of your presence (like when they cut you off).  It's easy to describe that type of behavior as someone being an asshole.  But if we got a chance to know the person, walk a mile in their shoes, we might find that our initial impression was a mistake.  They might be a generally good person who either came off badly in a single exchange or were distracted by some serious shit and had a momentary lapse in manners.

You've asked me to quote you being an asshole (and I have), but one part of the challenge is that any individual statement might appear as misreading or representing tone.  Especially in a written medium, that can be a challenge.  A statement like 'is that what you're going to wear?' could be a legitimate question without any judgement perhaps to make sure you don't wear the same outfit or dress similarly.  But it could also be a diss making fun of someone's fashion sense.  How can one be sure?  Well, normally you can't be sure.  But when a behavior is repeated enough, and you're called on it over and over, you can be reasonably certain that someone is continuing that behavior because they're an asshole.

So it is with you.  You have been called out for being dismissive many times.  You have been called out for redefining terms to your advantage many times.  You have been called out for arguing one point then claiming to have been arguing the opposite the entire time and people should just ask you for clarification instead of disagreeing with you.  I have linked to these examples, but because it requires reading 40+ pages of comments to fully understand context it's not easy or reasonable to demand that someone show you the single comment that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're an asshole.

Fortunately, I don't need to do that.  When I call you an asshole, that's a statement of opinion.  You can claim that I'm not entitled to my opinion, or that my opinion is not based on sufficient evidence to meet your standards, but it is clear that your standards of what makes YOU as asshole are unreasonably high.  I expect that there is no standard of evidence that you'd agree to accept to accede that you are, in fact, an asshole.  And that's okay.  As much as I would like you to show even the smallest amount of self-reflection and personal improvement, you've also shown that you can't stand any criticism and are automatically defensive and resort to scorched earth attacks.

It's my belief that just about everyone that has interacted with you in places like this now sees that your 'argument' comes out to 'I know you are but what am I'.  Dealing with someone who responds in that way requires infinite patience or dropping it because there is no prospect of changing their mind - and of course it does nothing to deflect the accusation outside of a 3rd grade mentality.  But I think it's really important that you understand that I continue to think you're an asshole, I continue to provide descriptions of what I consider assholish behavior, I continue to show that you act in that manner, and I haven't kicked any dogs in the face (which wouldn't necessarily mean that I'm not right even if it does mean that I'm also an asshole), so it would be another example of you being an asshole if you try to respond by saying something to the effect of 'I've already responded to all your comments' (you haven't), or 'he's already proven that his comments mean nothing because he's a big meanie' (that's an opinion you can have for yourself, but not on behalf of the whole world).

Of course, rather than respond to any of this, you're going to contend that I'm a liar with no credibility.  As discussed previously, I think each reader is entitled to make that determination.  Even if I have said something inaccurate (open for interpretation), it doesn't mean that I can't be right.  So please, keep insisting that I'm a liar liar pants on fire - personally I think that reinforces my perception in the minds of others.  :) 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on September 26, 2022, 12:30:10 PM
To repeat, nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof, he can't even keep his own lies straight:


I saw him bullying people

Quote
holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.

Quote
You are toxic.

Quote
redefining terms to your advantage



Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: sombodystolemyname on October 04, 2022, 07:23:39 PM
Now, terms like 'bullying' are subjective

Definition of bullying - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bullying

Definition of bullying (Entry 1 of 2)
: abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. : the actions and behavior of a bully
Definition of bullying (Entry 2 of 2)
: prone to or characterized by overbearing mistreatment and domination of others

Looks pretty clear cut to me, not really subjective.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on October 04, 2022, 08:02:13 PM
Okay, if you're not of the opinion that people can disagree whether an action is 'mean', sure, Zak's abusive.  Personally, I feel like someone could say 'I hit that person in defense of myself or someone else, so it shouldn't be considered abuse. 

Lots of people believe context matters.  Thus 'subjective'.  It's hard for 12 reasonable people to agree whether a clearly violent action actually counts as 'abuse, even when the action or relative 'strength' of the people are not in doubt. 

And if quoting the dictionary at each other helps, I mean: modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.

Anyways, it seems strange to me that you'd want to revive this thread.  Whenever I post I call Zak S. an asshole and apparently he doesn't like it - so much so that he's threatening to stop producing D&D content.  What's your endgame here?  You think you can convince ne Zak isn't an asshole?  Did you read my last post?  Do you need links to the various examples of him being an asshole?  If you like the art you may want to believe that the artist is worth supporting, but that’s often not the case.  Lots of people thought Bill Cosby was a really swell guy and super-funny and they went out of their way to defend him.  You don't see as much of that anymore.  Michael Jackson convinced a lot of people that he was being unfairly persecuted - a completely innocent victim of celebrity obsession - and there is enough there to at least create the seeds of doubt when the actions are suspected and not proven.  But in Zak's case, it's all based on his words in the public record.

In my mind the only question is 'is it frequent and severe enough to warrant the title asshole.  Since that is also subjective, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me - nor do I demand that they must either agree to be mentally deficient/illogical OR agree with me.  I do think that most reasonable people will agree that I have sufficient reason to believe it is true: Zak S is an asshole.  But most people is still not everyone.  And if you think that I COULDN'T POSSIBLY have sufficient reason, I'm happy to go through the evidence again with a focus on what would be helpful to you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on October 04, 2022, 08:13:49 PM
To anyone still reading--nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof, he can't even keep his own lies straight:


I saw him bullying people

Quote
holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.

Quote
You are toxic.

Quote
redefining terms to your advantage



Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on October 04, 2022, 08:15:33 PM
New page, might as well repost the response.  Zak gets cranky when he doesn't think he's being 'responded to'. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking
Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 

You can't even keep your own lies straight.

You keep trying to accuse me of ascribing moral weight to your actions.  Talking about what's right and wrong is a philosophical discussion and ultimately, irrelevant.  I don't care if you think you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing - I care about the impact your actions have on others.  What you call 'wrong' I call being an asshole.  I don't care if you think you're justified or not - it's clear that you think you are - but the actual IMPACT ON OTHER PEOPLE doesn't actually depend on whether you're honestly deluded into believing that you're an innocent victim who is always being attacked first.  It's not TRUE, but even if it was, you'd still be an asshole.  You'd just have justified that behavior to yourself and some others...not me, though.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on October 04, 2022, 08:19:36 PM
Deaddmwalking is still trying to accuse me of various things, only doing it vaguely ("impact on others"? is it a negative impact on others? Doe he want people to think I'm "deluded"? That I "attacked" people unprovoked? It's impossible to say, there is no consistency here.

But, remember--nothing deaddmwalking says should be taken seriously because he is a liar.

Here is the proof, he can't even keep his own lies straight:


I saw him bullying people

Quote
holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.

Quote
You are toxic.

Quote
redefining terms to your advantage



Zak, I'm not claiming that you did something wrong. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Foxxxy Bruin on April 25, 2023, 01:17:29 PM
Zak, a day or two after Mandy's allegations, RPGPundit made a video in which he said, "I told you, Zak's a piece of shit." He has since removed this video from public view on his YouTube channel. Do you think he did this as a reaction to your suing various people? Though the video is now private, his blog entry is still up:

http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2019/02/zak-s-i-told-you-so.html?m=1

A choice comment by Pundit on this post:

Quote from: RPGPundit
The thing about this is that he's shown many of the manipulation and abuse techniques Mandy is talking about, out in the online world.

He's also someone who's shown himself to be a narcissistic sociopath with no loyalty to people who stood by him.

That means that first, it makes it a lot more likely he would betray Mandy, if he'll betray the people who stood up for him. Second, even if these accusations are false, he LITERALLY called for someone to be banned out of existence mere months ago for this. He said this is how he thinks people accused of sexual misconduct should be treated. So between having backstabbed me and all my friends and everyone who fought for his rights before, and the fact that he has no virtue of fighting for anyone else's rights, even if Mandy was 100% making it up (and I know her a little and I'm pretty damn sure she's not), why should anyone in the OSR raise a finger to help this piece of shit?

He's not one of us. He's a frustrated fake-male-feminist SJW. A group, by the way, who are known to be excessively prone to sexual harassment of women.
He's also someone who doesn't believe in individual liberty and free speech. He thinks he's part of a special intellectual/artistic elite who are smarter than other people and should thus get to run our lives and follow no rules. Those are exactly the kind of people who abuse women because they have no morals or ethics.

He has burned so many bridges and surrounded himself by so much shit that he has lost any claim to deserving being defended.

Your thoughts on these comments, Zak?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 25, 2023, 01:26:35 PM
I don't know why Pundit does anything, I can only guess.

My guess is Pundit is a lot like the other people I sued--I believe Pundit backed a false allegation without any proof because that's how he talks to his audience: via false allegations without proof, like this one:

Quote from: RPGPundit
he LITERALLY called for someone to be banned out of existence mere months ago for this. He said this is how he thinks people accused of sexual misconduct should be treated.

and this:

Quote
The thing about this is that he's shown many of the manipulation and abuse techniques Mandy is talking about

I think people who are accused and guilty should face serious consequences, and people, like myself, who are innocent, should not. This isn't a confusing idea and is the position held in basically all contemporary societies and is reflected in their law codes: what they claim is that people should be punished if they're guilty, not just randomly.

It's only confusing if someone is literally trying to conflate the innocent and the guilty in order to push some other agenda (and they are speaking to an audience stupid enough to believe it).
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: deadDMwalking on April 25, 2023, 02:17:21 PM
My guess is Pundit is a lot like Cam--he backed a false allegation without any proof because that's how he and Cam talk to their audiences: via false allegations without proof...

Or, Pundit is an individual capable of recognizing patterns in behavior, and he has repeatedly seen Zak demonstrate shitty behavior.  I don't think that Pundit is a particularly good judge of character, but maybe the only thing we agree on is Zak is a piece of shit.  I like the term 'shitmuffin', personally, and Zak has exclusive claim on that term in my personal vernacular. 
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 26, 2023, 12:49:29 AM
I removed the video sometime after I posted it, in response to an update Zak made where he presented some evidence that put Mandy's own statements into more serious question.

I'll note that this doesn't change most of my opinion on Zak himself. He absolutely did call for people to be cancelled, or supported their cancelation from places like Drivethru, just not him or his publishers. He has never believed in Free Speech. He turned on people who supported him, like Alexander Macris.

And I'll note he's making use of Free Speech on this, my platform, when he had previously claimed that someone like me shouldn't have free speech on other platforms. I don't expect he'll be likely to apologize for any of that. It's up to you readers to decide who is the more principled person in this context.

In spite of all this, I will continue to provide for him a platform.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 26, 2023, 12:53:30 AM
Also, "Foxxxy Bruin" is banned as a sockpuppet of Tubesock Army, which may in fact be a sockpuppet of another infamous banned user.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 26, 2023, 06:15:02 AM
claimed that someone like me shouldn't have free speech on other platforms. I don't expect he'll be likely to apologize for any of that. It's up to you readers to decide who is the more principled person in this context.

In spite of all this, I will continue to provide for him a platform.

Pundit, why did he claim that you shouldn't have free speech? On what grounds?

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 26, 2023, 08:34:54 AM
claimed that someone like me shouldn't have free speech on other platforms. I don't expect he'll be likely to apologize for any of that. It's up to you readers to decide who is the more principled person in this context.

In spite of all this, I will continue to provide for him a platform.

Pundit, why did he claim that you shouldn't have free speech? On what grounds?
Because despite Zak's rhetoric, he's still a leftist at heart and we all know how leftists feel about free speech.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 26, 2023, 09:24:00 AM
Also, "Foxxxy Bruin" is banned as a sockpuppet of Tubesock Army, which may in fact be a sockpuppet of another infamous banned user.

I was going to report her/he/whatever, but figured you'd be able to determine that pretty quickly.

RE: Zak, he's a typical Marxist shill. Whines like a little bitch whenever he has a perceived insult or slight, but quick to dogpile on anyone he disagrees with, over anything. Pundit demonstrably supports free speech; Zak supports his own. I'm surprised he even posted here again, but this seems relevant now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T575Pbo4eWM
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 26, 2023, 10:01:16 AM
claimed that someone like me shouldn't have free speech on other platforms. I don't expect he'll be likely to apologize for any of that. It's up to you readers to decide who is the more principled person in this context.

In spite of all this, I will continue to provide for him a platform.

Pundit, why did he claim that you shouldn't have free speech? On what grounds?
Because despite Zak's rhetoric, he's still a leftist at heart and we all know how leftists feel about free speech.

Interesting... That makes no sense in my book, anyone that is against free speech is a fool and I say this as an old left-winger. The old left was always pro-free speech, freedom of creativity, and anti-censorship. This nu 'leftist' thing seems to be an American/Canadian phenomenon.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 26, 2023, 01:10:16 PM
I have exactly the same principles around free speech as every country whose laws I'm aware of:

One of the limits on it is making false accusations against innocent people--and folks who do that with their ability to speak should face consequences. This applies regardless of whether the liar (or the negligent dickhead) has helped you out or not, because principles are more important than cronyism.

Considering a thread about me successfully suing for defamation is currently pinned by Pundit here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/apology-to-zak-smith/new/?topicseen#new

...its kinda weird that this position is being presented as anti-free speech or in any way inconsistent.

This position-- that false accusations are bad and the people who make them shouldn't get away with that -- is one of the most common and easy-to-understand beliefs in the entire world.

And p.s.: A great way to avoid the damage fake accusations do is to not just accept a third-party description of someone else's claims, actions or beliefs at face value without asking for proof. Very much including Pundit's description of mine.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on April 26, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Because despite Zak's rhetoric, he's still a leftist at heart and we all know how leftists feel about free speech.

Interesting... That makes no sense in my book, anyone that is against free speech is a fool and I say this as an old left-winger. The old left was always pro-free speech, freedom of creativity, and anti-censorship. This nu 'leftist' thing seems to be an American/Canadian phenomenon.

While there has been less support recently, America still has stronger freedom of speech protections than the UK and Germany, for example. The modern movement to forcibly shut down talk considered fascist is rooted in Germany's long-standing anti-fascist laws. Free speech for everyone has always been only marginally supported. It's always been a struggle. Many people were effectively cancelled for unacceptable speech in the 1950s, say.

However, I do think that the marginal support for free speech has been getting weaker in the last 20-30 years.

The core problem I think the idea of opposing ideas as toxic. i.e. People exposed to them become infected and can't be changed, so the only thing to do is prevent them from being exposed to these ideas. On campuses (school or college), this means that rather than the focus being on having talks or classes with the right ideas, the focus is on blocking talks or classes with supposedly toxic ideas.

I think the toxic idea has gained strength as political rhetoric has grown steadily more polarized since the mid-1990s.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 26, 2023, 01:30:54 PM
I have exactly the same principles around free speech as every country whose laws I'm aware of:

One of the limits on it is making false accusations against innocent people--and folks who do that with their ability to speak should face consequences. This applies regardless of whether the liar (or the negligent dickhead) has helped you out or not, because principles are more important than cronyism.

For me, there's a big difference between 'free speech' and slander or libel.

So people can say what they want about me (I couldn't give a fook) - Unless it crosses the line into 'false accusations' that could potentially affect my career or standing (that could have a knock-on effect for future employment or whatever).

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 26, 2023, 01:32:05 PM
I have exactly the same principles around free speech as every country whose laws I'm aware of:

One of the limits on it is making false accusations against innocent people--and folks who do that with their ability to speak should face consequences. This applies regardless of whether the liar (or the negligent dickhead) has helped you out or not, because principles are more important than cronyism.

For me, there's a big difference between 'free speech' and slander or libel.

So people can say what they want about me (I couldn't give a fook) - Unless it crosses the line into 'false accusations' that could potentially affect my career or standing (that could have a knock-on effect for future employment or whatever).

So we have the exact same position.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 26, 2023, 01:59:07 PM
So we have the exact same position.

Yes, it would appear so.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 26, 2023, 02:47:36 PM
I have exactly the same principles around free speech as every country whose laws I'm aware of:

One of the limits on it is making false accusations against innocent people--and folks who do that with their ability to speak should face consequences. This applies regardless of whether the liar (or the negligent dickhead) has helped you out or not, because principles are more important than cronyism.

Considering a thread about me successfully suing for defamation is currently pinned by Pundit here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/apology-to-zak-smith/new/?topicseen#new

...its kinda weird that this position is being presented as anti-free speech or in any way inconsistent.

This position-- that false accusations are bad and the people who make them shouldn't get away with that -- is one of the most common and easy-to-understand beliefs in the entire world.

And p.s.: A great way to avoid the damage fake accusations do is to not just accept a third-party description of someone else's claims, actions or beliefs at face value without asking for proof. Very much including Pundit's description of mine.

Just reading this post gave me chlamydia.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 26, 2023, 11:38:38 PM
I have exactly the same principles around free speech as every country whose laws I'm aware of:

One of the limits on it is making false accusations against innocent people--and folks who do that with their ability to speak should face consequences. This applies regardless of whether the liar (or the negligent dickhead) has helped you out or not, because principles are more important than cronyism.

Considering a thread about me successfully suing for defamation is currently pinned by Pundit here: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/apology-to-zak-smith/new/?topicseen#new

...its kinda weird that this position is being presented as anti-free speech or in any way inconsistent.

This position-- that false accusations are bad and the people who make them shouldn't get away with that -- is one of the most common and easy-to-understand beliefs in the entire world.

And p.s.: A great way to avoid the damage fake accusations do is to not just accept a third-party description of someone else's claims, actions or beliefs at face value without asking for proof. Very much including Pundit's description of mine.

You supported the cancellation of Alex Macris. You suggested that the cancellation of game designers who had conservative political views was acceptable.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 26, 2023, 11:47:42 PM

You supported the cancellation of Alex Macris. You suggested that the cancellation of game designers who had conservative political views was acceptable.

Alex Macris actively supported people who--exactly like the people I sued--made false accusations that hurt people. For example-- Milo Yiannopoulos.

He is no different than the people I sued.

Unless you want to include defamation in "free speech" you don't have a leg to stand on here.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 27, 2023, 03:31:14 AM
Just reading this post gave me chlamydia.
I thought it'd be hunger.

From "D&D with porn stars" to "D&D with food stamps."

Come to think of it, if he's getting food stamps then that suggests he didn't get very generous settlements to his legal action. Which suggests they couldn't be bothered and he wasn't entirely sure of success.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 27, 2023, 03:33:11 AM
i am no longer on food stamps.

and me and the other porn stars still play dnd
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 27, 2023, 05:47:07 AM
I thought it'd be hunger.

From "D&D with porn stars" to "D&D with food stamps."

Come to think of it, if he's getting food stamps then that suggests he didn't get very generous settlements to his legal action. Which suggests they couldn't be bothered and he wasn't entirely sure of success.

It's probably "D&D with porn stars on food stamps" now.

Also, he is literally unable to deal with any sort of criticism, which is pretty typical of brainwashed fucktards.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 27, 2023, 05:50:25 AM
there’s no proof of that.

criticism is fine and no one cares about that.

The issue here is lying— and that is being handled by the lawyers.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 27, 2023, 06:20:06 AM

You supported the cancellation of Alex Macris. You suggested that the cancellation of game designers who had conservative political views was acceptable.

Alex Macris actively supported people who--exactly like the people I sued--made false accusations that hurt people. For example-- Milo Yiannopoulos.

He is no different than the people I sued.

Unless you want to include defamation in "free speech" you don't have a leg to stand on here.

First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 27, 2023, 07:11:08 AM
there’s no proof of that.

LOL
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 27, 2023, 11:30:42 AM

First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2023, 12:11:24 PM
claimed that someone like me shouldn't have free speech on other platforms. I don't expect he'll be likely to apologize for any of that. It's up to you readers to decide who is the more principled person in this context.

In spite of all this, I will continue to provide for him a platform.

Pundit, why did he claim that you shouldn't have free speech? On what grounds?
Because despite Zak's rhetoric, he's still a leftist at heart and we all know how leftists feel about free speech.

Interesting... That makes no sense in my book, anyone that is against free speech is a fool and I say this as an old left-winger. The old left was always pro-free speech, freedom of creativity, and anti-censorship. This nu 'leftist' thing seems to be an American/Canadian phenomenon.

You're thinking of classical liberals, not leftists, leftists ARE Marxists/Socialists/Commie Scum. By still supporting those 3 things you have now become ultra-mega-MAGA-AltRight.

Even our own Grim Jim, who calls himself a socialist-libertarian (an oxymoron like Christian-Socialist), is in favor of censorship regarding the jabs for instance.

Reading Zak's last post he supported the cancellation/went after Macris for the high crime of:


First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

Supporting a terri-bad person.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 27, 2023, 12:13:25 PM

Reading Zak's last post he supported the cancellation/went after Macris for the high crime of:
Supporting a terri-bad person.

I went after him for supporting harmful misinformation. He helped someone who made false accusations.

False accusations are bad and stopping them and the people who make them is good. This is not an unusual view.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2023, 12:17:28 PM

Reading Zak's last post he supported the cancellation/went after Macris for the high crime of:
Supporting a terri-bad person.

I went after him for supporting harmful misinformation. He helped someone who made false accusations.

False accusations are bad and stopping them and the people who make them is good. This is not an unusual view.

Yes comrade we must kill all the kulaks and anyone whose family was friends with one 5 generations ago.

Should we also extend the sin to the people who walked by the kulak on the street?

But you claim there's no proof you're a POS?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 27, 2023, 12:21:59 PM

Yes comrade we must kill all the kulaks and anyone whose family was friends with one 5 generations ago.


False equivalence.

Macris gave someone a public-facing job on his media site after he spread misinformation, while the guy was doing it and after Macris was informed of it

And, not for nothing, that dude also supported Milo before and while Macris hired him.

Supporting these guys in this way is basically turning your business into a giant lie amplifier.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 27, 2023, 12:29:03 PM
Even our own Grim Jim, who calls himself a socialist-libertarian (an oxymoron like Christian-Socialist), is in favor of censorship regarding the jabs for instance.

Sadly, GJ had a lot of very false accusations made about him too, and stuff that definitely hurt his career options and earning potential. Lots of people spread the rumor about that article he wrote and just labeled him a 'rape apologist' (which he was not). BUT yet they never even read through the article but the mud sticks, unfortunately...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2023, 12:29:48 PM

Yes comrade we must kill all the kulaks and anyone whose family was friends with one 5 generations ago.


False equivalence.

Macris gave someone a public-facing job on his media site after he spread misinformation, while the guy was doing it and after Macris was informed of it

Nope, it's exactly what you fuckers want to do: To have the "sinner" die in the curb penniless, and anyone who dares help him to not die should also suffer the same fate.

Fuck you and your fake virtue you POS. Back to ignoring you, I feel dirty just by talking to you over the internet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2023, 12:30:39 PM
Even our own Grim Jim, who calls himself a socialist-libertarian (an oxymoron like Christian-Socialist), is in favor of censorship regarding the jabs for instance.

Sadly, GJ had a lot of very false accusations made about him too, and stuff that definitely hurt his career options and earning potential. Lots of people spread the rumor about that article he wrote and just labeled him a 'rape apologist' (which he was not). BUT yet they never even read through the article but the mud sticks, unfortunately...

And yet he's in favor of censorship when he disagrees with your speech.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 27, 2023, 12:33:15 PM
Even our own Grim Jim, who calls himself a socialist-libertarian (an oxymoron like Christian-Socialist), is in favor of censorship regarding the jabs for instance.

Sadly, GJ had a lot of very false accusations made about him too, and stuff that definitely hurt his career options and earning potential. Lots of people spread the rumor about that article he wrote and just labeled him a 'rape apologist' (which he was not). BUT yet they never even read through the article but the mud sticks, unfortunately...

And yet he's in favor of censorship when he disagrees with your speech.

Was that just about masks? Because in gaming terms he's pretty much very anti-censorship like myself.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2023, 12:47:37 PM
Even our own Grim Jim, who calls himself a socialist-libertarian (an oxymoron like Christian-Socialist), is in favor of censorship regarding the jabs for instance.

Sadly, GJ had a lot of very false accusations made about him too, and stuff that definitely hurt his career options and earning potential. Lots of people spread the rumor about that article he wrote and just labeled him a 'rape apologist' (which he was not). BUT yet they never even read through the article but the mud sticks, unfortunately...

And yet he's in favor of censorship when he disagrees with your speech.

Was that just about masks? Because in gaming terms he's pretty much very anti-censorship like myself.

Wearing masks, asking if the jabs were safe or refusing to take them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 27, 2023, 01:00:10 PM
Wearing masks, asking if the jabs were safe or refusing to take them.

'Nout wrong with asking questions about a new vaccine (not that it was actually new per se because of a lot of research had been done on other influenza-type variants). But not many people knew that at the time (myself included).

I can understand why you had to wear masks at one point. Especially if you had to see vulnerable poeple or go into a hospital. I still have to wear one in the doctor's surgery but i don't mind that. Again, I'm doing it to protect any vulnerable patients they might have.

I got the jabs myself (3 of them) but it should be down to the person. My neighbors for example are cool young hippies and won't go near them.

It boils down to choice.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2023, 02:42:59 PM
Wearing masks, asking if the jabs were safe or refusing to take them.

'Nout wrong with asking questions about a new vaccine (not that it was actually new per se because of a lot of research had been done on other influenza-type variants). But not many people knew that at the time (myself included).

I can understand why you had to wear masks at one point. Especially if you had to see vulnerable poeple or go into a hospital. I still have to wear one in the doctor's surgery but i don't mind that. Again, I'm doing it to protect any vulnerable patients they might have.

I got the jabs myself (3 of them) but it should be down to the person. My neighbors for example are cool young hippies and won't go near them.

It boils down to choice.

Especially because it WAS developed at warp speed, with not enough testing and without informing the public about the possible secondary effects.

I won't use a mask unless forced, got the jabs (2) and regret doing so since it doesn't prevent contagion or stop the spread and since it has severe secondary effects and I'm not in the at risk group.

But like you say it should be a personal choice.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: David Johansen on April 27, 2023, 08:50:19 PM
Whoa!  Wait!  How'd we get to vaccines again?  Do they have one that's effective against Zak?  Was it developed quickly?  Are there side effects?  Fox news wants to know.

Anyhow, I'm in favor of free speech but I'm also in favour of back alley beatings relating to its abuse.  I guess that makes me a hick or a fascist or maybe just someone who doesn't think years of litagation resulting in meaningless, heartless apologies are good for anyone but the lawyers.  No, I'm aware of the issues with it, but I think more immediate and visceral consequences lead to greater civility at any rate.

Oh wait...the police are at my door and there's some men in white coats with butterfly nets.  It must be about something I said yesterday, the government is simply incapable of staying current with the internet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 27, 2023, 08:53:03 PM
Anyhow, I'm in favor of free speech but I'm also in favour of back alley beatings relating to its abuse.

The only thing about that, is the latter vigilante style, while very cheap may result in you having to spend a loooong time in prison.

In Europe at least they don't like vigilante justice.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on April 27, 2023, 09:26:04 PM
Do they have one that's effective against Zak?

A massive dose of penicillin is the usual treatment for STD's.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 27, 2023, 10:52:36 PM

First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

What "false accusations" did Brandon Morse make? I trust that by "false accusations" you mean he specifically claimed that some trans person did something which they did not do, correct? Not that he said "transgenderism is a mental illness" or something broad and general like that?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Chris24601 on April 27, 2023, 10:55:14 PM
Here's an absolutely true statement;

I believe Zak S to be a hypocritical lying sack of shit with nothing of value to say. I believe that the best way to deal with him is to place him on ignore so he can scream into the empty void and fade into irrelevance while we go on about our lives.

I also believe that if everyone did this the world would be a better place.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 27, 2023, 10:57:18 PM
Because in fact, Zak, in your own blog post (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2015/02/were-not-playing-d-with-escapist-ever.html) where you say you're boycotting the Escapist, the only thing of Brandon Morse's that you cite as reason for betraying Alex Macris is this:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ila5WeSQ2QI/VOohogUfXOI/AAAAAAAAXV4/Ks7EipGn_rs/s1600/brandon_morse_bigot.tiff)

You go on to say "Without comparing anybody's struggle to anybody else's, you don't need a degree in social science to figure out that since one of the people in our group is a Jew, six are people of color, two were born handicapped and like someteen are bisexual women and one is trans it would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we were, hypothetically, to make money for a company that would then give that money to an actively anti-semitic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic person.
So the D&D With Porn Stars crew working with the Escapist under those conditions would be as hypocritical and self-defeating as supporting Think of the children!-anti-sex conservatives like Fred Hicks or Fox News. Here: we let you film us playing D&D, you make money, then take the money, buy a bullet, and shoot us each in the foot with it.
"

That's your argument. Not provably false slander against anyone. You just don't like his politics, and think Morse, and then Macris should be censored for their politics.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 27, 2023, 11:09:33 PM

First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

What "false accusations" did Brandon Morse make? I trust that by "false accusations" you mean he specifically claimed that some trans person did something which they did not do, correct? Not that he said "transgenderism is a mental illness" or something broad and general like that?

Morse made lots of false statements.

I cited Morse's anti-trans stance as my reason for leaving the Escapist and dissociating with Alex Macris, its head, and didn't specifically mention the word "misinformation" because, like anti-semitism its almost impossible to be anti-trans without believing and spreading misinformation. Believing false things is how you get to be a bigot.

For example Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

He therefore made a false accusation against basically all trans activists at once.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg of false claims Morse has made.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on April 27, 2023, 11:55:15 PM

First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

What "false accusations" did Brandon Morse make? I trust that by "false accusations" you mean he specifically claimed that some trans person did something which they did not do, correct? Not that he said "transgenderism is a mental illness" or something broad and general like that?

Morse made lots of false statements.

I cited Morse's anti-trans stance as my reason for leaving the Escapist and dissociating with Alex Macris, its head, and didn't specifically mention the word "misinformation" because, like anti-semitism its almost impossible to be anti-trans without believing and spreading misinformation. Believing false things is how you get to be a bigot.

For example Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

He therefore made a false accusation against basically all trans activists at once.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg of false claims Morse has made.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 12:15:00 AM

First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

What "false accusations" did Brandon Morse make? I trust that by "false accusations" you mean he specifically claimed that some trans person did something which they did not do, correct? Not that he said "transgenderism is a mental illness" or something broad and general like that?

Morse made lots of false statements.

I cited Morse's anti-trans stance as my reason for leaving the Escapist and dissociating with Alex Macris, its head, and didn't specifically mention the word "misinformation" because, like anti-semitism its almost impossible to be anti-trans without believing and spreading misinformation. Believing false things is how you get to be a bigot.

For example Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

He therefore made a false accusation against basically all trans activists at once.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg of false claims Morse has made.


First, you went after Macris before he got involved with Milo; when he was at Defy Media. And second, "false accusations" was not what you accused him of. You went after him for having hired someone who had different views on transgender people from you.

Macris supported a person who made false accusations about trans people and many other people.

And the fact that later Macris went on to support Milo is just another nail.

I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.

What I do see is a POS leftard moving the goal post from accusations to claims, while all accusations are claims not all claims are accusations.

Whoever claims that trans-people ARE under threat in the west is making a claim, well here's some skepticism for you: Prove your claim.

As for the movement being rooted in narcissism well that's an opinion, you're free to disagree, or, if you are so retarded as to think this IS a false accusation (libel or slander) then please, take him to a court of law.

But you are a POS leftard and you KNOW your charges don't hold water, so you instead try to destroy him by underhanded means, and to instill terror in others you try to destroy anyone who dares help or even associate with him.

Which is the essence of the leftard terrorism we've been living under for over a decade, "either agree or keep quiet or else we'll destroy you". Well how bout no, FUCK YOU.

Back to ignoring the leftard POS turd, take it from here Pundit.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:22:44 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.

2. Narcissism is a clinical condition, claiming someone suffers from it is an accusation. It has a scientific definition. Burden of proof is on the accuser (Brandon Morse). Morse has cited no study indicating trans rights activists' goals originate in that clinical condition.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on April 28, 2023, 12:35:40 AM
1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.

So you're happy to go on record and say that White people, CIS men, heterosexuals, and Christians are under threat? And anyone saying otherwise, you'd tell them they're spreading misinformation?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 12:38:10 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:42:22 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

While I do believe trans people are disproportionately under threat based on what I know, I don't have to prove that in order for my claim against Morse to be true.

My job was to demonstrate that Brandon Mose spread misinformation.

I did.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 12:43:49 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

Fuck me, I KNEW he was a leftard but I didn't think he was a literal retard.

That's NOT an accusation made by Morse against anyone, not even after the dishonest leftard twisting of words.

But I truly hope HE does take this to a court of law, it would be hilarious. What's more, since the POS leftard loooooves to take people to court for defamation/libel/slander someone should tell Morse about the ACTUAL false accusations the POS is making here in public. That would be poetic justice.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:45:09 AM
That's NOT an accusation made by Morse against anyone, not even after the dishonest leftard twisting of words.

Claiming the trans movement is rooted in narcissism is objectively an accusation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 12:45:29 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

While I do believe trans people are disproportionately under threat based on what I know, I don't have to prove that in order for my claim against Morse to be true.

My job was to demonstrate that Brandon Mose spread misinformation.

I did.

Bwahahahahhaahahhahahaha!

No, you didn't you fucking MORON!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 12:46:52 AM
That's NOT an accusation made by Morse against anyone, not even after the dishonest leftard twisting of words.

Claiming the trans movement is rooted in narcissism is objectively an accusation.


Bwahahahahahahaha no, it isn't you fucking MORON!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:47:42 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

While I do believe trans people are disproportionately under threat based on what I know, I don't have to prove that in order for my claim against Morse to be true.

My job was to demonstrate that Brandon Mose spread misinformation.

I did.

Bwahahahahhaahahhahahaha!

No, you didn't you fucking MORON!

If you don't think that's misinformation then you must, by definition, agree with Morse claim that the trans movement is rooted in narcissism.

Present proof.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 01:11:01 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

While I do believe trans people are disproportionately under threat based on what I know, I don't have to prove that in order for my claim against Morse to be true.

My job was to demonstrate that Brandon Mose spread misinformation.

I did.

Bwahahahahhaahahhahahaha!

No, you didn't you fucking MORON!

If you don't think that's misinformation then you must, by definition, agree with Morse claim that the trans movement is rooted in narcissism.

Present proof.

Or, me (not being a leftard POS like you), think that's HIS opinion, opinions aren't "misinformation" you fucking MORON!

Accusation:
noun
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

I'll repeat it slowly since you obviously need it:

All accusations ARE claims, but not all claims are accusations.

For instance: I believe that Zak S IS a POS. It's a claim, a claim of MY belief (opinion) that YOU ARE a POS.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 01:35:36 AM
Accusation:
noun
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.



Making an activist movement out of narcissism while claiming its based in something else would be doing something wrong.

So:

Morse claiming that trans activism is based in narcissism isn't mere opinion, it is an accusation against said activists.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 02:04:05 AM
Accusation:
noun
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.



Making an activist movement out of narcissism while claiming its based in something else would be doing something wrong.

So:

Morse claiming that trans activism is based in narcissism isn't mere opinion, it is an accusation against said activists.

WRONG! You yourself don't believe it, or else you'd be taking him to court. But since you KNOW you can't prove he's done anything illegal you (like a fascist) resort to destroying his career and to prevent others from helping him or any other of your victims you then proceed to victimize (or attempt to at the very least) the person that dared give him a job. That's why I believe that you're a POS.

Now, regarding the everybody is under threat ergo trans-people are under threat also...

Under threat: at gunpoint, at knife point, under duress, threatened with harm.

Now here's the thing, you now HAVE TO (your own rules) prove that everybody is under threat or that trans-people are at the very least. Because you damn well know that the words mean unlawful threat of death or bodily harm by a third party.

YOU made the claim you fucking MORON, now prove it.

Since you cant and you'll try more semantic games back to ignoring you because IMO you're a turd, a POS.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on April 28, 2023, 02:44:14 AM
Now, regarding the everybody is under threat ergo trans-people are under threat also...

Under threat: at gunpoint, at knife point, under duress, threatened with harm.

Now here's the thing, you now HAVE TO (your own rules) prove that everybody is under threat or that trans-people are at the very least. Because you damn well know that the words mean unlawful threat of death or bodily harm by a third party.

I'm not endorsing anything that Zak says, and find his style of argument wacko. However, if the question is threat to transgender people, there are studies like this:

Quote
Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization than cisgender households.
Quote
  • Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people.
  • Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively).
  • One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.
  • In 2017-2018, transgender households had higher rates of property victimization (214.1 per 1,000 households) than cisgender households (108 per 1,000 households).
  • About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 04:08:21 AM
So basically this whole thing boils down to trannies?

Yeah, they're under sooooo much threat they go and shoot up schools and kill a bunch of kids. The only people threatening trannies are the doctors giving in to their mentally ill delusions and providing operations that literally result in their deaths:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27664856/

Zak S, care to dispute this study? Who killed this poor kid? Was it the evil hordes of faceless individuals you claim are waiting on the corners, eager to destroy tranny lives? Or was it the fucking doctors who decided to perform an unnecessary operation? Fucking retard. "I have proven false accusations." No, motherfucker, you have proven nothing other than someone's OPINION that you don't like means you decide to engage in "cancel culture". What an absolute faggot.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 04:40:46 AM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

While I do believe trans people are disproportionately under threat based on what I know, I don't have to prove that in order for my claim against Morse to be true.

My job was to demonstrate that Brandon Mose spread misinformation.

I did.

Except it's contextually OBVIOUS that Morse wasn't suggesting that no transgender person was ever under any threat, that they could never be victims of crime or die of old age or lose a tooth. He was very obviously responding to the suggestion that there's a "trans genocide" happening, which the Trans Activists claim with ever more screeching alacrity every passing day even though the actual evidence very much shows that there is not a mass-killing of Trans people happening in the USA, or any other western country.

So, are you going to suggest it would be OK to ban those trans activists from Social Media for making "false accusations"?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 05:55:51 AM
So, are you going to suggest it would be OK to ban those trans activists from Social Media for making "false accusations"?

Of course not, the burden of proof in this case is to demonstrate that it's NOT happening, not actually provide evidence that it is. All anti-scientific like. Zak is a good little Marxist and makes claims that are OBVIOUSLY true, morally, and any claim to the contrary means you are de facto immoral. This fucking clown had the audacity to claim I was some sort of degenerate because I said, rightfully so, that pornstars are generally looked down upon by the majority of normal people. Cannot be true! Must not be true! Patently true things are not true if they disrupt his delusional world view wherein he is a paragon of all that is right in the world.

Blah blah blah, you get the point. Fuck him. I am done wasting time on this stupid topic and you should go write some more RPG stuff for me to buy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 06:07:00 AM
burden of proof is on the accuser.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 06:30:54 AM
Now, regarding the everybody is under threat ergo trans-people are under threat also...

Under threat: at gunpoint, at knife point, under duress, threatened with harm.

Now here's the thing, you now HAVE TO (your own rules) prove that everybody is under threat or that trans-people are at the very least. Because you damn well know that the words mean unlawful threat of death or bodily harm by a third party.

I'm not endorsing anything that Zak says, and find his style of argument wacko. However, if the question is threat to transgender people, there are studies like this:

Quote
Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization than cisgender households.
Quote
  • Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people.
  • Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively).
  • One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.
  • In 2017-2018, transgender households had higher rates of property victimization (214.1 per 1,000 households) than cisgender households (108 per 1,000 households).
  • About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

BY whom?

This is like the hidden domestic violence incidence for lesbians.

WHO is victimizing the trannies? Other trannies.

LOL, it's worst than I thought, the data is from a survey of about 240K people, it's not based on ACTUAL crime statistics but in people saying they were victimized.

Yeah, excuse me if I don't trust self reporting shit without evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 28, 2023, 07:01:00 AM
1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.

Whut? That's far too broad a statement to be really valid in this case and is literally the definition of a Motte and Bailey argument.

But if you look at the statistics, however, one could say this (inspector) Morse is wrong. Trans folks ARE more likely to be targeted.

If he describes the Trans movement as purely based on 'narcissism' then he's clearly off in 'la la' land as that makes no sense whatsoever. I presume this is just an attack on the moment itself, as opposed to actually being in any way factual. Because one could easily look at the science behind gender dysmorphia (we know it exists and is pretty well-researched at this point). By the sounds of it, this (inspector) Morse is just an ass.

But I think we all should to be careful here because having an opinion does not automatically translate to 'deliberately spreading false information'. I mean, I've been wrong on numerous occasions (does that mean I deliberately spread misinformation for voicing my opinion?). It's more nuanced than that in my opinion.

This (inspector) Morse character doesn't sound like a particularly nice person. Not that I know who the fuck he is. But I certainly wouldn't defend his views.




Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:22:09 AM
If he describes the Trans movement as purely based on 'narcissism' then he's clearly off in 'la la' land as that makes no sense whatsoever.

Then he's distributing misinformation.

Quote
I mean, I've been wrong on numerous occasions (does that mean I deliberately spread misinformation for voicing my opinion?)

"deliberately" doesn't come into it.

If he did it on purpose, he's evil.

If he did it accidentally, he's stupid and evil (since he could've done more research and didn't).

Either way: my choice not to support him (and to urge others not to) is wholly justified.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 28, 2023, 07:36:51 AM
If he describes the Trans movement as purely based on 'narcissism' then he's clearly off in 'la la' land as that makes no sense whatsoever.

Then he's distributing misinformation.

Quote
I mean, I've been wrong on numerous occasions (does that mean I deliberately spread misinformation for voicing my opinion?)

"deliberately" doesn't come into it.

If he did it on purpose, he's evil.

If he did it accidentally, he's stupid and evil (since he could've done more research and didn't).

Either way: my choice not to support him (and to urge others not to) is wholly justified.

I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier). Because if you want to go down that route it opens up too many parts of an argument(s). Especially your first part about 'all' people being 'under threat'.

However, you're fully within your rights to not support this (inspector) Morse character. He sounds like a prick (assuming he said those things).

However, you and Pundit seem to be saying different things in this thread - So I can't judge the argument as a whole because I'm not privy to all the facts.

But, yeah... No one has to support anyone they don't like but I don't think that's ever been an issue.









Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 09:46:42 AM
burden of proof is on the accuser.

In a court of law. If what Pundit posted is accurate, YOU'RE accusing someone of doing something, yet providing no proof.

I've heard syphilis can melt your brain, maybe you should go get checked out.

EDIT: Zak S is a lying, disingenuous moron. Quite possibly diseased. Proof: see the above posts. Waiting for "no u".
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 10:05:54 AM
What I posted was what he stated on his own blog.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 28, 2023, 11:34:55 AM
What I posted was what he stated on his own blog.

Ah, that sheds some light on the subject.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:07:45 PM
I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

The members of the movement are--by definition--being accused of being dishonest about their intentions or being self-deceived. Morse cannot prove that--nobody can.

And false accusations are bad.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 28, 2023, 12:11:52 PM
I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:14:41 PM
I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.


1. Then read the rest of what I said, identify TWO false claims, since if Morse even made one false accusation he did something wrong. That's the morally meaningful thing here.

2. And its not a motte and bailey because that would require me to have 2 separate positions, a motte one and then a different bailey one. Which I do not have. I have but one position: all people are under threat. That Morse may have meant something different doesnt matter since-- see 1 above.

So:

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 12:21:10 PM
Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

Prove this isn't true; there's enough empirical evidence to substantiate this position, so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

"No u" isn't proof against his claim.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on April 28, 2023, 12:22:08 PM
What I posted was what he stated on his own blog.
There's a whole host of misinformation on that blog post.

For example:
Quote
"...money for a company that would then give that money to an actively anti-semitic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic person. "

So he accuses the person who won't play the trans game (a dubiously transphobic statement) of also being an anti-semite, racist, ableist, sexist, and homophobe.
Zak just made up a whole bunch of other shit about the person.
He needs to cancel himself for spreading misinformation and being overtly evil.

Paul Jaquays wrote Dark Tower.  Jennel had nothing to do with it.
Paul also wrote the Central Casting books which included tables of sexual disorders like transexualism, sadism and necrophilia.
Luckily Paul Jaquays has been canceled for being evil and misinformed. /s
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Rob Necronomicon on April 28, 2023, 12:23:13 PM
I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.


1. Then read the rest of what I said, identify TWO false claims, since if Morse even made one false accusation he did something wrong. That's the morally meaningful thing here.

2. And its not a motte and bailey because that would require me to have 2 separate positions, a motte one and then a different bailey one. Which I do not have. I have but one position: all people are under threat. That Morse may have meant something different doesnt matter since-- see 1 above.

So:

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

I see... I'd forgotten about how having even a simple conversation with you was like pulling teeth.

So, I'll leave it here and to the more learned (and patient) people on this forum.






Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:24:57 PM
so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.


Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 12:38:06 PM
so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.


Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime. I'll have the popcorn ready for the moment someone finally takes the POS (Zak I mean) to court for his libelous slander and defamation.

furthermore, in his addled brain being wrong (something he hasn't proven about Morse) is a crime, and has (in his addled brain) revolutionized modern jurisprudence by removing intent as something to take into consideration, ergo manslaughter will be treated as first degree murder from now on.

Don't bother answering me Zak, I'm just documenting your idiocy for posterity.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:44:04 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 12:52:31 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

But you did you fucking lying POS.
so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.


Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 12:58:50 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

But you did you fucking lying POS.
so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.


Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

Ah, I see

Well then I apologize -- I meant that as a figure of speech not as a legal diagnosis.

Thank you for pointing out the miscommunication there! That was helpful!

What I meant was:

His reason for doing bad things was either stupidity or dishonesty.

Again: happy for the opportunity to clear that up for you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on April 28, 2023, 01:09:15 PM
Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

So Albert Einstein committed a whole series of crimes by spreading misinformation about the origins of the universe?

You're a joke.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 01:10:45 PM
Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

So Albert Einstein committed a whole series of crimes by spreading misinformation about the origins of the universe?

You're a joke.

If that misinformation was harmful to real humans then it should not have been spread.

To my knowledge, that claim (that stuff Einstein might've got wrong was harmful) has not been made.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on April 28, 2023, 01:57:04 PM
Regarding the argument with Zak,

But if you look at the statistics, however, one could say this (inspector) Morse is wrong. Trans folks ARE more likely to be targeted.

If he describes the Trans movement as purely based on 'narcissism' then he's clearly off in 'la la' land as that makes no sense whatsoever. I presume this is just an attack on the moment itself, as opposed to actually being in any way factual.
Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

Zak, people can genuinely differ over assertions of fact. As far as I've seen, you always claim to be right, and say that it's a moral failing of other people when they're stupid and wrong.

I approach things that I might be wrong about the facts. I have my friends and relatives who are transgender, and I've casually read up on various studies - but I don't consider myself an expert on transgender psychology. Plus, even on the things I'm an expert in, I sometimes get wrong. It's embarrassing, but as a physics PhD I still sometimes screw up in helping my stepson on his high school math homework.

I don't think it's a moral failing to be wrong. I'm wrong about things, myself, and I understand when other people are wrong.

I like my transgender friends and relatives, but there are also transgender people that I consider assholes or worse. I knew a transgender couple who died as a murder/suicide. I don't think I'm particularly qualified to generalize about all transgender people - but then, I wouldn't assume that other people are either. The best we can do is share our experiences and studies.


I'm not endorsing anything that Zak says, and find his style of argument wacko. However, if the question is threat to transgender people, there are studies like this:
...
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

BY whom?

This is like the hidden domestic violence incidence for lesbians.

WHO is victimizing the trannies? Other trannies.

LOL, it's worst than I thought, the data is from a survey of about 240K people, it's not based on ACTUAL crime statistics but in people saying they were victimized.

What source do you base on? Are there studies showing that transgender people are responsible for excessive violence? From the studies I have seen, transgender people commit violent crime and suicide at similar rates as their assigned birth sex. So transgender women can be violent, but no moreso than non-transgender men.

In other words, this suggests transgender people are just people. They aren't angels, but they also aren't demons.

For victimization, the data source is the NCVS - which was established in 1972 under Richard Nixon because looking at only at cases successfully investigated and prosecuted by the police produced a biased view of crime rates. Local police departments are motivated to under-report their crime rates, so a national randomized and anonymous survey has been considered an important check on local police. Looking at only convicted/proven crimes can result in a massive undercounting of how much crime actually occurs. Think of things like car break-ins or shoplifting, not to mention rape and assault.

EDITED TO ADD: As I said, I don't consider myself an expert in transgender psychology. If you have other information sources about transgender violence rates, I'd be interested to read them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 02:06:34 PM
Zak, people can genuinely differ over assertions of fact.

And when the stakes are high (like peoples real lives), the person then must then investigate fully or else they are doing something morally wrong--they're being negligent.

And if they make a mistake, they need to apologize.

Like the guy who this whole thread started with.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: DocJones on April 28, 2023, 02:10:29 PM
And if they make a mistake, they need to apologize.

Like the guy who this whole thread started with.

Looking forward to your apology to Morse.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 02:11:16 PM
"No u" isn't proof against his claim.

Haha, why did I expect anything less. Literal LOL again.

Take your fucking L like a man, you syphilis-riddled methhead.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on April 28, 2023, 02:14:01 PM
I have my friends and relatives who are transgender...

Trans are a fraction of a percentage point of the population. Most Americans don't even have a single Trans friend or family member, by sheer statistical probability. How do you explain having multiples of both friends and family that are Trans?

If someone kept talking about how so many of their friends and family members had shaven heads, bright white sneakers, and matching jumpsuits, I'd suspect they were in a cult.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 02:36:31 PM
I'm not endorsing anything that Zak says, and find his style of argument wacko. However, if the question is threat to transgender people, there are studies like this:
...
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

BY whom?

This is like the hidden domestic violence incidence for lesbians.

WHO is victimizing the trannies? Other trannies.

LOL, it's worst than I thought, the data is from a survey of about 240K people, it's not based on ACTUAL crime statistics but in people saying they were victimized.

What source do you base on? Are there studies showing that transgender people are responsible for excessive violence? From the studies I have seen, transgender people commit violent crime and suicide at similar rates as their assigned birth sex. So transgender women can be violent, but no moreso than non-transgender men.

In other words, this suggests transgender people are just people. They aren't angels, but they also aren't demons.

For victimization, the data source is the NCVS - which was established in 1972 under Richard Nixon because looking at only at cases successfully investigated and prosecuted by the police produced a biased view of crime rates. Local police departments are motivated to under-report their crime rates, so a national randomized and anonymous survey has been considered an important check on local police. Looking at only convicted/proven crimes can result in a massive undercounting of how much crime actually occurs. Think of things like car break-ins or shoplifting, not to mention rape and assault.

EDITED TO ADD: As I said, I don't consider myself an expert in transgender psychology. If you have other information sources about transgender violence rates, I'd be interested to read them.

The vast majority of the crimes are committed intra community not by people from outside, this is true for race and sexuality, why should it be different for the trans?

A survey has exactly ZERO validity as evidence, especially when talking about people who think that not using their neo pronouns or correct gendering them or using their birth-name IS violence. "It's ma'am!"

I'm sure this isn't true of ALL trans, but the type more likely to answer such a survey (it's a self-selecting process which is why it has no validity) are the type to break into tears over people not participating in their delusion and to resort to violence over it. Because they have a mental illness.

Take for instance the surveys that pretended to prove that US colleges were a hot bed of rape/sexual assault against women, turns out US colleges are safer than the city they're located in. So, no, surveys do not prove shit.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on April 28, 2023, 03:43:23 PM
Out there on the internet I came across what was purported to be the judgement for the trial between you and your ex. I am no lawyer, but it looked to me as though the judge ruled that all but two of her public claims against you were true, including threatening to evict her if she didn't have sex with you, belittling her appearance until she got a boob job, and not stopping during sex if she said you were hurting her.  I dunno you, I dunno her, maybe she suckered the judge with cunning lies, maybe you two had some freaky d/s thing going on where she was totes into rough sex with the evil landlord roleplay, consenting adults and all that. But if it is as she was presenting it, and it was not kinky consenting adults things, you should invest more time in making some life changes than hunting down assholes on the internet, because people should not treat their partners in that manner. At least without discussions and safewords and whatnot.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 04:02:03 PM
Out there on the internet I came across what was purported to be the judgement for the trial between you and your ex. I am no lawyer, but it looked to me as though the judge ruled that all but two of her public claims against you were true, including threatening to evict her if she didn't have sex with you, belittling her appearance until she got a boob job, and not stopping during sex if she said you were hurting her.  I dunno you, I dunno her, maybe she suckered the judge with cunning lies, maybe you two had some freaky d/s thing going on where she was totes into rough sex with the evil landlord roleplay, consenting adults and all that. But if it is as she was presenting it, and it was not kinky consenting adults things, you should invest more time in making some life changes than hunting down assholes on the internet, because people should not treat their partners in that manner. At least without discussions and safewords and whatnot.

Viv was lying, I won my case against her she lost her case against me.

We were dating, she moved in, then she started cheating on us and we ceased to be dating, so I said she should move out. That's it.

Here's the rundown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38fCqOBYtQI&t=2s

Here's videotape of her getting caught lying: https://twitter.com/IHitItWithMyAxe/status/1632121312339705856

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on April 28, 2023, 06:23:44 PM
If someone kept talking about how so many of their friends and family members had shaven heads, bright white sneakers, and matching jumpsuits, I'd suspect they were in a cult.
For the last time, it's not a cult, you insensitive clod! It's a social club!
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 06:28:29 PM
I have my friends and relatives who are transgender...

Trans are a fraction of a percentage point of the population. Most Americans don't even have a single Trans friend or family member, by sheer statistical probability. How do you explain having multiples of both friends and family that are Trans?


If you live in a cosmopolitan area, exist in communities with cosmopolitan values and/or come from a family with a history of cosmopolitan values then you're more likely to meet a lot of trans people.

Also: there's the thing called the internet which humans use to share common interests.

Most humans don't play old school D&D yet somehow I know so many people who do.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 06:32:31 PM

So he accuses the person who won't play the trans game

If you have evidence that transgender rights activism is a "game" please do present it.

Quote
Paul Jaquays wrote Dark Tower.  Jennel had nothing to do with it.
Paul also wrote the Central Casting books which included tables of sexual disorders like transexualism, sadism and necrophilia.
Luckily Paul Jaquays has been canceled for being evil and misinformed. /s

Has that happened, when Jennel openly transitioned then she might've said "Oh I'm sorry I made a mistake when I was younger" and that would be the end of that.

Jennell is a smart person--I see no evidence she has the extremely online problem of equating apologizing with apocalyptic soul death.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 06:34:02 PM
furthermore, in his addled brain being wrong (something he hasn't proven about Morse) is a crime, and has (in his addled brain) revolutionized modern jurisprudence by removing intent as something to take into consideration, ergo manslaughter will be treated as first degree murder from now on.



The point is not to punish Morse for being bad, it is to reduce the harm Morse causes by being bad.

If someone intends to be good and isn't, you still have to address it to prevent harm.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 06:38:45 PM
The best we can do is share our experiences and studies.



No we can do way better: we can also reduce inaccuracies in public circulation.

If your experience is you're allergic to anchovies and the pizza delivery guy thinks you want the anchovy special, you gotta fix that if you want your pizza.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 06:47:36 PM
I still don't see ANY accusations (false or otherwise) made by Morse.


Here is the accusation:

Morse falsely claimed trans people are not under threat (provably false) and the trans rights movement is rooted in narcissism (false).

1. All people are under threat, since harmful things can happen to anyone, so the first claim is categorically false.


Holy shit, that's the most pedantic thing I've ever seen you say. By that logic literally everyone is "under threat", and it gives no evidence that transgender people as a group or transgender individuals are under any more threat of any kind than anyone else in the world.

While I do believe trans people are disproportionately under threat based on what I know, I don't have to prove that in order for my claim against Morse to be true.

My job was to demonstrate that Brandon Mose spread misinformation.

I did.

Except it's contextually OBVIOUS that Morse wasn't suggesting that no transgender person was ever under any threat, that they could never be victims of crime or die of old age or lose a tooth. He was very obviously responding to the suggestion that there's a "trans genocide" happening, which the Trans Activists claim with ever more screeching alacrity every passing day even though the actual evidence very much shows that there is not a mass-killing of Trans people happening in the USA, or any other western country.

So, are you going to suggest it would be OK to ban those trans activists from Social Media for making "false accusations"?

If someone is spreadind misinformation the first thing to do is give them an opportunity to correct it.

If they don't they should have their ability to do that curtailed, using the method that is the least disruptive while still being effective.

It doesn't matter what their politics are.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 07:04:16 PM
Blah, blah, blah

"I assert X has caused harm (but provide no proof of my claim) and since I have erected myself into the sole judge, jury and executioner destroying those I have claimed are practicing witchcraft spreading harmful misinformation is morally good."

Go fuck yourself you sanctimonious, holier than thou, hypocritical POS.

It would be funny if it didn't caused REAL world harm to see the "words are violence" cunts committing ACTUAL violence against others.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:05:47 PM
Blah, blah, blah

"I assert X has caused harm (but provide no proof of my claim)

If this is your claim then:

Ask for proof.

Don't assume your interlocutor has none.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on April 28, 2023, 07:14:08 PM
If you live in a cosmopolitan area, exist in communities with cosmopolitan values and/or come from a family with a history of cosmopolitan values then you're more likely to meet a lot of trans people.

See, an open-minded person would look at that data point and think "so either Cosmopolitan areas are supportive areas, where the previously fearful naturally Trans people are finally able to come out; or Cosmopolitan areas are hotbeds for a fad/Mass Hysteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases), massively inflating the numbers of legitimate cases."

I'm going to guess open-mindedness is off the table though.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:15:25 PM
If you live in a cosmopolitan area, exist in communities with cosmopolitan values and/or come from a family with a history of cosmopolitan values then you're more likely to meet a lot of trans people.

See, an open-minded person would look at that data point and think "so either Cosmopolitan areas are supportive areas, where the previously fearful naturally Trans people are finally able to come out; or Cosmopolitan areas are hotbeds for a fad/Mass Hysteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases), massively inflating the numbers of legitimate cases."

I'm going to guess open-mindedness is off the table though.

You can guess whatever you want so long as you say its a guess
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:25:47 PM
I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.


1. Then read the rest of what I said, identify TWO false claims, since if Morse even made one false accusation he did something wrong. That's the morally meaningful thing here.

2. And its not a motte and bailey because that would require me to have 2 separate positions, a motte one and then a different bailey one. Which I do not have. I have but one position: all people are under threat. That Morse may have meant something different doesnt matter since-- see 1 above.

So:

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.


There's an amazing amount of Narcissism in Trans Activism. They demand that every moment of every day be a celebration of their existence and show loyalty tests of people acknowledging whatever their own self-definition is, however ludicrous or absurd, and every aspect of life must be a constant affirmation of those ideas, and they should have a right to do  things with and in front of your children whether you wish it or not, because this too is proof of loyalty, and if you refuse in any way it means that there's a Literal Trans Genocide so it's OK to describe a trans person who murders six people as a "victim too".

The idea that other people have to constantly praise you and affirm you and whatever you say, that's definitely narcissism.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:29:42 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:32:30 PM
There's an amazing amount of Narcissism in Trans Activism. They demand....

Who is the "they" in this comment?

All trans people?

All trans activists?

Most trans people?

Most trans activists?

People you personally have identified as thought leaders in the trans community?

Some randos you cherry picked to make fun of?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:33:06 PM
furthermore, in his addled brain being wrong (something he hasn't proven about Morse) is a crime, and has (in his addled brain) revolutionized modern jurisprudence by removing intent as something to take into consideration, ergo manslaughter will be treated as first degree murder from now on.



The point is not to punish Morse for being bad, it is to reduce the harm Morse causes by being bad.

If someone intends to be good and isn't, you still have to address it to prevent harm.

Yes, that's the argument many of your fellow leftists use against YOU.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:33:42 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?

Here you go:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1252267/#msg1252267
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:35:39 PM
furthermore, in his addled brain being wrong (something he hasn't proven about Morse) is a crime, and has (in his addled brain) revolutionized modern jurisprudence by removing intent as something to take into consideration, ergo manslaughter will be treated as first degree murder from now on.



The point is not to punish Morse for being bad, it is to reduce the harm Morse causes by being bad.

If someone intends to be good and isn't, you still have to address it to prevent harm.

Yes, that's the argument many of your fellow leftists use against YOU.

If they do it would be a bad and unjustified argument since I haven't caused harm by being bad.

Like preventing Godzilla from stepping on your house is justified, preventing a squirrel from stepping on your house isn't. It's not a complicated argument and its silly you'd even try to make it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:38:11 PM
There's an amazing amount of Narcissism in Trans Activism. They demand....

Who is the "they" in this comment?

All trans people?

All trans activists?

Most trans people?

Most trans activists?

People you personally have identified as thought leaders in the trans community?

Some randos you cherry picked to make fun of?

Trans activism as a movement.  Were the insurrectionists that stormed the Tennessee capital (with the participation of 3 elected democrat politicians) and who claimed that Audrey Hale, who murdered six people (three of them young children), was a "victim" just some randos?   
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:39:23 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?

Here you go:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1252267/#msg1252267

You apologized to us, not to Morse, who was the person you falsely claimed did a "crime". Do you want me to get in touch with Brandon and have arrange for where you can apologize to him for this terrible thing you did that by your own judgment is worthy of cancellation?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:41:19 PM
There's an amazing amount of Narcissism in Trans Activism. They demand....

Who is the "they" in this comment?

All trans people?

All trans activists?

Most trans people?

Most trans activists?

People you personally have identified as thought leaders in the trans community?

Some randos you cherry picked to make fun of?

Trans activism as a movement.

How do you decide which individual's actions are the responsibility of "trans activism as a movement"

A trans activist played a jewel thief in I Am The Weapon a few times, are you claiming playing a jewel thief in I Am The Weapon is a characteristic of "trans activism as a movement"?


Quote
Were the insurrectionists that stormed the Tennessee capital (with the participation of 3 elected democrat politicians) and who claimed that Audrey Hale, who murdered six people (three of them young children), was a "victim" just some randos?
I don't know anything about that incident so I don't have an opinion on it.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:46:51 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?

Here you go:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1252267/#msg1252267

You apologized to us, not to Morse, who was the person you falsely claimed did a "crime". Do you want me to get in touch with Brandon and have arrange for where you can apologize to him for this terrible thing you did that by your own judgment is worthy of cancellation?

I didn't falsely claim he committed a crime. I used a figure of speech, like when:

 Adolf Loos said "ornament is crime" .
"Small aim is a crime; have great aim." - A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
"Failure is not a crime. The crime is not trying." - Ron Dellums
"Popularity is a crime from the moment it is sought; it is only a virtue where men have it whether they will or no." -George Savile
"To restrict the artist is a crime. It is to murder germinating life." -Egon Schiele

etc

I was using definition 2 from Oxford Languages:

"an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong."

I was apologizing that I used a way of speaking that was over the person I was talking to's head and then clarified to a more literal statement.

If you would like to dispute that and argue that I actually meant a different thing than I claimed I meant then that's an accusation and so you'll have to offer proof.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:47:11 PM
furthermore, in his addled brain being wrong (something he hasn't proven about Morse) is a crime, and has (in his addled brain) revolutionized modern jurisprudence by removing intent as something to take into consideration, ergo manslaughter will be treated as first degree murder from now on.



The point is not to punish Morse for being bad, it is to reduce the harm Morse causes by being bad.

If someone intends to be good and isn't, you still have to address it to prevent harm.

Yes, that's the argument many of your fellow leftists use against YOU.

If they do it would be a bad and unjustified argument since I haven't caused harm by being bad.

Like preventing Godzilla from stepping on your house is justified, preventing a squirrel from stepping on your house isn't. It's not a complicated argument and its silly you'd even try to make it.


The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not. THAT is why any argument against Free Speech is dangerous.
I know that you think you're the smartest man who ever lived, and that whatever you define at any given moment as being true or not, or harmful or not, must by definition be true because you are a the living embodiment of Objectivity, a god-like avatar, and if only the worthless uncreative plebs allowed you, the greatest Artist the world has known since Nero, to be the unimpeded Despot of the World, you would create a paradise on Earth. Even if that wasn't absolute utter bullshit and you would fuck everything up beyond recognition just like every other arrogant piece of shit who deluded himself into believing he would get it right, the simple fact is that you will almost certainly NOT be the one who will have the absolute power. Someone else will. Someone who will not agree with you. And unfortunately, if you don't agree with him, there's a good chance he'll decide YOU are the one who is not being objective, and (as you really should have learned by now) no claim of your own objectivity or innocence will save you from cancellation.

To try to claim that YOU personally should not be cancelled but anyone else who you dislike absolutely should be DOESN'T WORK if your goal is not to be cancelled. Again, one would have hoped that the no doubt horrific suffering you have gone through over these last few years might have opened your eyes to that fact.  But apparently not...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:50:27 PM


The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.



Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:50:43 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?

Here you go:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1252267/#msg1252267

You apologized to us, not to Morse, who was the person you falsely claimed did a "crime". Do you want me to get in touch with Brandon and have arrange for where you can apologize to him for this terrible thing you did that by your own judgment is worthy of cancellation?

I didn't falsely claim he committed a crime. I used a figure of speech, like when:

 Adolf Loos said "ornament is crime" .
"Small aim is a crime; have great aim." - A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
"Failure is not a crime. The crime is not trying." - Ron Dellums
"Popularity is a crime from the moment it is sought; it is only a virtue where men have it whether they will or no." -George Savile
"To restrict the artist is a crime. It is to murder germinating life." -Egon Schiele

etc

I was using definition 2 from Oxford Languages:

"an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong."

I was apologizing that I used a way of speaking that was over the person I was talking to's head and then clarified to a more literal statement.

If you would like to dispute that and argue that I actually meant a different thing than I claimed I meant then that's an accusation and so you'll have to offer proof.

Wow, that's really fascinating how the rules change just for you... because in your case you can say "Crime" without it literally meaning a criminal act, but if Brandon Morse says "narcissist" he MUST mean a literal psychological diagnosis of the mental condition of the same name, and not as a general sense of which it is used in common English of someone who is vain or extremely self-centered.

Funny that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:51:50 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?

Here you go:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1252267/#msg1252267

You apologized to us, not to Morse, who was the person you falsely claimed did a "crime". Do you want me to get in touch with Brandon and have arrange for where you can apologize to him for this terrible thing you did that by your own judgment is worthy of cancellation?

I didn't falsely claim he committed a crime. I used a figure of speech, like when:

 Adolf Loos said "ornament is crime" .
"Small aim is a crime; have great aim." - A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
"Failure is not a crime. The crime is not trying." - Ron Dellums
"Popularity is a crime from the moment it is sought; it is only a virtue where men have it whether they will or no." -George Savile
"To restrict the artist is a crime. It is to murder germinating life." -Egon Schiele

etc

I was using definition 2 from Oxford Languages:

"an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong."

I was apologizing that I used a way of speaking that was over the person I was talking to's head and then clarified to a more literal statement.

If you would like to dispute that and argue that I actually meant a different thing than I claimed I meant then that's an accusation and so you'll have to offer proof.

Wow, that's really fascinating how the rules change just for you... because in your case you can say "Crime" without it literally meaning a criminal act, but if Brandon Morse says "narcissist" he MUST mean a literal psychological diagnosis of the mental condition of the same name, and not as a general sense of which it is used in common English of someone who is vain or extremely self-centered.

Funny that.

Not parallel at all.

If Brandon responded with a clarification (like I did) and that clarification itself were true (like mine) and included a definition of the relationship between trans activism and narcissism that was accurate then he'd be off the hook.

But he can't.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 07:56:00 PM


The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.

NO, Zak. No they don't. Again, I think you would have learned that about Real Life by now. It would be great if we could actually have debates and use evidence as a basis, but we KNOW that's not true. Look at Twitter pre-Elon, where people were posting things that were absolute unquestionable FACTS and being banned for it, because the people in power did not care about truth or facts or evidence to back up arguments.

THAT IS WHY FREE SPEECH, Zak. Because even if the idea of "punishing the people who are wrong" is something that turns you on, or even if you are altruistically motivated by thinking "we want to get rid of people who will harm others with their words", inevitably the people who end up with the POWER to decide will not decide the way you think they ought to, and when you complain, they'll just say YOU are the one who's words are harming others, and end you.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 07:57:41 PM


The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.

NO, Zak. No they don't. Again, I think you would have learned that about Real Life by now. It would be great if we could actually have debates and use evidence as a basis, but we KNOW that's not true. Look at Twitter pre-Elon, where people were posting things that were absolute unquestionable FACTS and being banned for it, because the people in power did not care about truth or facts or evidence to back up arguments.

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 08:03:25 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 08:05:42 PM


The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.

NO, Zak. No they don't. Again, I think you would have learned that about Real Life by now. It would be great if we could actually have debates and use evidence as a basis, but we KNOW that's not true. Look at Twitter pre-Elon, where people were posting things that were absolute unquestionable FACTS and being banned for it, because the people in power did not care about truth or facts or evidence to back up arguments.

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

Slander is a separate issue to Free Speech. But Brandon Morse or Alex Macris didn't slander you.  Hell, they didn't even insult you, as far as I know.

I let you post about it here first of all because I believe in Free Speech. Second, because I like that they got caught out as bad people, which they are, I mean absolute scum of the earth, to the point that you and I who agree on very little both recognize what scum they are.  But also, being forced to retract a slanderous statement doesn't mean they now lost their voice otherwise.

Anyways, if you want some fresh examples of people lying about you, here you go: https://twitter.com/The_Far_Horizon/status/1651645610066411520?s=20

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 08:06:09 PM
Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

But you did you fucking lying POS.
so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.


Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

Ah, I see

Well then I apologize -- I meant that as a figure of speech not as a legal diagnosis.

Thank you for pointing out the miscommunication there! That was helpful!

What I meant was:

His reason for doing bad things was either stupidity or dishonesty.

Again: happy for the opportunity to clear that up for you.

Where "doing bad things" is him expresing his opinion that you (as the perfect godlike embodiment of morality and objectivity) have claimed is "misinformation" (whatever that means) and have claimed (since it's you making the claim it must be objectively true because we have established you think yourself perfect in all regards) it's causing "harm" (I figure this means hurt fee-fees but whatever) without providing a shred of evidence of this being true (but we must assume it is because it's you making the claim and we have established you think yourself perfect and the final arbiter of what's true and moral).

As Pundit has explained to you, one would think that you, having been or the receiving end of other cunts (you being one) efforts to cancel and destroy you would have learned your lesson.

But you're too smart for something so trivial as to learn from experience am I right you sanctimonious cunt?

Go crawl under a rock and fuck yourself.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 08:06:53 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 08:08:34 PM

Where "doing bad things" is him expresing his opinion that you

A claim is not an opinion.

He didn't say "I don't like cheeseburgers"

He didn't say "I am guessing that trans activists are narcissists"

He claimed a thing. He said "X is y". That's no mere opinion.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 08:09:18 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 08:09:48 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Nah, he's not autistic, he just has an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger combined with a god complex.

The cunt thinks himself too smart for the world, too perfect, the final arbiter of what's good and true. Like all his fellow leftard travelers.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 08:10:23 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 08:11:37 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Nah, he's not autistic, he just has an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger combined with a god complex.

The cunt thinks himself too smart for the world, too perfect, the final arbiter of what's good and true. Like all his fellow leftard travelers.

No I just think that in a dispute between someone who can back up their position and someone who can swear a lot, the backing-up person gets to be considered right until better evidence comes along.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 08:12:09 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

Right, he's not your garden variety Dunning-Krueger god complex cunt, he's an educated one too.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 08:12:32 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.


Defamation doesn't just mean someone making fun of you, Zak. Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 08:13:53 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.

You would know, what with you being on par with flat-earthers and Young Earth Creationists or ACTUAL anti-vaxxers.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 08:14:02 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.


Yes, but it is my theory that going to Yale actually makes people MORE disconnected from the real world.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 08:14:40 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.


Defamation doesn't just mean someone making fun of you, Zak. Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.
I'm talking about misinformation, not "making fun".

And you don't have to prove your rep was worse in all cases.

Please don't lie about that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Zak S on April 28, 2023, 08:15:10 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.


Yes, but it is my theory that going to Yale actually makes people MORE disconnected from the real world.

So long as you claim its a mere theory then its not important.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 08:17:10 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Nah, he's not autistic, he just has an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger combined with a god complex.

The cunt thinks himself too smart for the world, too perfect, the final arbiter of what's good and true. Like all his fellow leftard travelers.

No I just think that in a dispute between someone who can back up their position and someone who can swear a lot, the backing-up person gets to be considered right until better evidence comes along.

Hey, Cunty mcCunt, you haven't backed up ANY of your accusations against Brandon Morse.

It's funny how everybody else needs to expressly say IMO but you get a pass. Like I said you're too dumb to realize you're dumb and think yourself way smarter than you actually are.

Go crawl under a rock and fuck yourself you POS.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 08:17:23 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.


Defamation doesn't just mean someone making fun of you, Zak. Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.
I'm talking about misinformation, not "making fun".

And you don't ave to prove your rep was worse in all cases.

Please don't lie about that.

Are you trying to seriously claim that you could successfully sue someone for using the word "autistic" as an insult against you in a court of law for "Defamation"?
Note: NOT using any kind of argument where you might be autistic, and claim it was some kind of discrimination or hate speech against you.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2023, 08:18:01 PM

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.


Yes, but it is my theory that going to Yale actually makes people MORE disconnected from the real world.

So long as you claim its a mere theory then its not important.

Well, the evidence does continue to mount...
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on April 28, 2023, 08:23:22 PM
Just gonna say:

1) This is fucking hilarious.
2) Zak is the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.
3) Pundit is the least hypocritical person of note on the internet.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2023, 08:31:40 PM
Just gonna say:

1) This is fucking hilarious.
2) Zak is the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.
3) Pundit is the least hypocritical person of note on the internet.

In before the cunt comes with some more special pleading that makes him not a lying, hypocritical & sanctimonious POS.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on April 28, 2023, 09:01:02 PM
Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.

Damn, guess he can't sue anyone ever again.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 02, 2023, 08:28:43 AM
There have been cases where a person is adjudged to be 'defamation proof', in that their public reputation is so bad you can't actually defame them.

If you're curious, the domestic terrorist/drug dealer/leftist bootlick Brett Kimberlin was a good example of this.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on May 03, 2023, 12:16:00 PM
I have my friends and relatives who are transgender...

Trans are a fraction of a percentage point of the population. Most Americans don't even have a single Trans friend or family member, by sheer statistical probability. How do you explain having multiples of both friends and family that are Trans?

If someone kept talking about how so many of their friends and family members had shaven heads, bright white sneakers, and matching jumpsuits, I'd suspect they were in a cult.

Stats are not spread evenly. For pretty much anything. Even for something 99%, you can fine zero for miles and miles and then a clump of that thing in an area. It's not some perfect spread.

I've known three trans people in my life on an "actually known" basis rather than merely met them once. One I've known since well before this became a trendy topic, having met her in the early-90s. One I grew up with them as one gender and then then transitioned to another in the past decade. The third I met in law school in the 90s. I guess you could say I know a fourth, but I don't have any idea how to classify them and I've known them since the 80s at Rocky Horror Picture Show and I had no idea how to classify them back then either (other than their sister was hot and we dated briefly).

None of these people are connected to each other beyond I think one met the Rocky Horror one, but I am pretty sure they're not friends or anything.

Does that make me part of a cult? No, it makes me part of a county which has a population of about 10 million people, making my county about as large as many nations, like Sweden.

I think I've mentioned I am fond of Casper, Wyoming, having visited there several times. I strongly suspect there isn't a single transgender person in that town though I could be wrong. If I grew up there and lived there still, I imagine I'd think like you do that it would be incredibly hard to know even one trans person, much less several. But grow up and live in a city like Los Angeles and your odds go drastically up. Just because there are so many people here the odds of knowing a member of any minority group go way up. Heck I know someone who is Zoroastrian by religion and there are surely a heck of a lot more trans people in the U.S. than Zoroastrians.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 03, 2023, 04:46:04 PM
But grow up and live in a city like Los Angeles and your odds go drastically up. Just because there are so many people here the odds of knowing a member of any minority group go way up. Heck I know someone who is Zoroastrian by religion and there are surely a heck of a lot more trans people in the U.S. than Zoroastrians.

But why do they go up?

People living in cities tend to know fewer people in any meaningful way than those in small towns, not more. Plenty of city people don't know the names of their immediate neighbors, whereas small town folks tend to know everyone.

So again we're back to something in cosmopolitan areas apparently mass producing rare types of people.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Mistwell on May 03, 2023, 07:44:49 PM
But grow up and live in a city like Los Angeles and your odds go drastically up. Just because there are so many people here the odds of knowing a member of any minority group go way up. Heck I know someone who is Zoroastrian by religion and there are surely a heck of a lot more trans people in the U.S. than Zoroastrians.

But why do they go up?

People living in cities tend to know fewer people in any meaningful way than those in small towns, not more. Plenty of city people don't know the names of their immediate neighbors, whereas small town folks tend to know everyone.

So again we're back to something in cosmopolitan areas apparently mass producing rare types of people.

Is that the case? I know my neighbors and I know a lot of people. I have no idea if I am representative though. If you go to a community event, like where you see school parents, or a religious event, or even a bar, you are more likely to run into someone from a minority group.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 03, 2023, 08:09:44 PM
I have my friends and relatives who are transgender...

Trans are a fraction of a percentage point of the population. Most Americans don't even have a single Trans friend or family member, by sheer statistical probability. How do you explain having multiples of both friends and family that are Trans?

If someone kept talking about how so many of their friends and family members had shaven heads, bright white sneakers, and matching jumpsuits, I'd suspect they were in a cult.

In a 2016 census analysis, about 3.8% of Americans identified as LGBT. Bisexual is the most common category, so gay/lesbian is likely around 1.5%, and 0.6% is transgender. However, those vary from state to state. The state with the lowest LGBT was North Dakota at 2.6% and Vermont was the highest at 5.3%. California where I live is 4.9% overall, but I think the percentage is a little higher in the SF Bay Area compared to California overall.

From my experience of different groups:

I have about ~80 or so extended family I know, of whom two are gay (counting my cousin's spouse) and one is transgender. That's roughly average for US, given that my family is spread out across the U.S. and South Korea.

In my church, we have about 200 members, and 2 are gay and 1 is transgender that I know of. That's a little under average for CA.

Of my in-person gaming groups, I've had probably around 100 people in different gaming circles over the past decades. Of those, I know 3 who are gay and 3 who are transgender. That's a little over average for CA, and over-representing transgender.

Of non-gaming, non-church personal friends, it's much harder to count. How wide does one cast the net? With rough numbers, if I cut at 100 people, then I guess there would be zero gay and one transgender among close-ish friends. That's under average for LGBT overall in CA, and again over-representing transgender.

---

There's low statistics here, but also I think it likely there's an effect from living in the SF Bay Area  and being in transgender-friendly social circles.

I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people. Even in a state like North Dakota (with 2.6% LGBT overall), then 300 people should include 8 LGBT people on average, among whom 1 is transgender.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 03, 2023, 11:49:54 PM
I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people.

No, you actually allegedly know an insane amount of people. You're quoting over DOUBLE Dunbar's Number as a guess for the average persons acquaintances.

Your use of 'know' is obviously so nebulous as to be useless. You're using 'know people' in the way most would say 'know of/have met in my life.'

As usual, your arguments are pure sophistry. "If you factor in every person you've ever spoken to in your life, you'll find you know tons of LGBT people!"
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 04, 2023, 12:33:41 AM
I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people.

No, you actually allegedly know an insane amount of people. You're quoting over DOUBLE Dunbar's Number as a guess for the average persons acquaintances.

Your use of 'know' is obviously so nebulous as to be useless. You're using 'know people' in the way most would say 'know of/have met in my life.'

As usual, your arguments are pure sophistry. "If you factor in every person you've ever spoken to in your life, you'll find you know tons of LGBT people!"

As I understand it, Dunbar's number of 150 is the number of contacts that a person can meaningfully maintain. But that's not the same as the number of people one has ever meaningfully known, because people wander in and out of that category. My transgender friend Heather, say, died six years ago. So she's not in the 150, but we used to meet for weekly gaming for six years or so, and would regularly chat (though mostly online since she was shy). On her recommendation, I interviewed at her company but I wasn't hired. She's not someone I just threw in there as a statistic.

My cousin Jordan and his husband John were never in that 150. We were never close, and I haven't seen him in person for over a decade at his grandfather's funeral, but he's still a first cousin. He invited me to come visit whenever I was in town, and I likewise with him. I don't think it's wrong to call him family and say that I care about him.

Of the people closest to me who are transgender, there's J whom I was roommate with for four years, and who will be officiating my wedding next year. There's Marie with whom I co-own the duplex I lived in for 18 years, which we are about to sell. And there's my niece who came out just a year ago, whose graduation I'm going to a few weeks from now.

I'm not making a claim about what this shows, but it's the truth. I tried to group people I know or have known into different categories to draw percentages, and maybe that clashed with your assumptions.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 04, 2023, 02:56:36 AM
As I understand it, Dunbar's number of 150 is the number of contacts that a person can meaningfully maintain. But that's not the same as the number of people one has ever meaningfully known, because people wander in and out of that category.
Yes. Maintaining a relationship with A means knowing how they feel about B, and how B feels about A. And then there's how C feels about A, and how A feels about C, and so on and so forth. And that's just one of the numbers. This BBC article talks about it (http://=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191001-dunbars-number-why-we-can-only-maintain-150-relationships). The 150 is "meaningful contacts", people who you know something about like their date of birth, how many children they have, where they went to uni, that sort of thing.

I've always felt it's confusingly-presented, because the 150 "meaningful contacts includes the 50 "friends" who you know several things about, shared some experiences with, etc; and they include the 15 "close friends", which includes the 5 "loved ones". Then there's the "intimate", which interestingly is an average of 1.5 - because men usually have just their wives there, and women have their husband plus a female best friend. So it's more like 1.5 + 5 + 10 + 40 + 100 etc.

Anyway, obviously we can have people move in and out of the levels. Thus the song, "Somebody That I Used To Know" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY). "Let's stay friends" means the "intimate" of the 1.5 moves out to "loved ones" if you're lucky, but more likely to the 300 or so "acquaintances" - you recognise them but (after a few years) don't know anything about them apart from what you learned from stalking them on LameScroll.

Just today on the stream with Dungeon Delver I was asked what I'd done about "problem players". I said there were a few kinds of "problems." The primary is the individual just being personally annoying. Others are clashing playstyles etc. I said: most of these problems are self-correcting. Love can be unrequited and returned only with indifference, but hate is usually mutual. If you dislike them, they probably dislike you and will move on shortly without your having to ask them to do so. But with that, most people will actually adjust a bit to the group around them - whether work, family, gaming or any other hobby. Most people don't want to annoy others.

Given that, there are some people I'd like at my game table, if I could. Love being sometimes unrequited they might not want to come, but I'd have them, anyway. But on the flipside, there are very few people I'd outright refuse to have at my game table. Whether they stick around long-term is another matter, of course. But there are very few I'd just refuse. Looking over recent posts in this thread I think I've found one.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 04, 2023, 05:44:50 AM
Looking over recent posts in this thread I think I've found one.

No need to be coy, this is a safe space.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 09, 2023, 08:44:28 PM
I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people.

No, you actually allegedly know an insane amount of people. You're quoting over DOUBLE Dunbar's Number as a guess for the average persons acquaintances.

Your use of 'know' is obviously so nebulous as to be useless. You're using 'know people' in the way most would say 'know of/have met in my life.'

Of the people closest to me who are transgender, there's J whom I was roommate with for four years, and who will be officiating my wedding next year. There's Marie with whom I co-own the duplex I lived in for 18 years, which we are about to sell. And there's my niece who came out just a year ago, whose graduation I'm going to a few weeks from now.

I'm not making a claim about what this shows, but it's the truth. I tried to group people I know or have known into different categories to draw percentages, and maybe that clashed with your assumptions.

I think people may have very different numbers of connections. It's weird, because I don't feel I'm that social most of the time, but from being active in several communities, I think I do have a large number of acquaintances - though some people have much more.

To add in other transgender people I know. I mentioned Heather who died six years ago. We used to meet for weekly gaming for six years or so, and would regularly chat (though mostly online since she was shy). On her recommendation, I interviewed at her company but I wasn't hired.

Emma was in my gaming circle. We co-GMed a Cinematic Unisystem game for three years. She hadn't come out yet at the time, but I went to a party of hers years later after she had transitioned.

As for the differing numbers, here's one explanation.

Quote
Almost 20 years after Dunbar made his estimate, in 2010, a trio of researchers led by Tyler McCormick, then a PhD student in statistics at Columbia University, attempted to estimate the average size of an individual’s network using surveys and statistical calculations in lieu of brain size.  They found that the average (mean) network size of those surveyed was 611 people. Taken by itself, this number is dramatically larger than Dunbar’s estimate. But while the mean network size was 611 contacts, the median was 472 contacts. This difference might not seem like a big deal to you or me, but to a statistician it’s a clear signal that the number of contacts in people’s networks doesn’t follow a normal distribution. Instead, network sizes may follow a power law.

https://qz.com/work/1351400/dunbars-number-doesnt-represent-the-average-number-of-social-connections

So there's a wide spread with many people knowing less than 100, and some people knowing 1000+.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 09, 2023, 11:19:24 PM
So there's a wide spread with many people knowing less than 100, and some people knowing 1000+.
Yes. And then there's the closeness: a rough proxy for closeness could be recent contact. Just look through your mobile phone, messenger service and email.

How many different people have you talked to,
1. in the last day?
2. week?
3. month?
4. 3 months?
5. 12 months?

Obviously, there are some you've not talked to for 12+ months who'd welcome you warmly if you showed up at their place today looking for somewhere to sleep, you're close despite lack of contact. But there'll also be some you talk to every day who'd be disturbed just at a lunch invite. So it evens out, thus my description of a "rough proxy."

Now compare these numbers with your LameScroll "friends" or WokedIn "connections".
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 10, 2023, 02:58:14 AM
So there's a wide spread with many people knowing less than 100, and some people knowing 1000+.
Yes. And then there's the closeness: a rough proxy for closeness could be recent contact. Just look through your mobile phone, messenger service and email.

How many different people have you talked to,
1. in the last day?
2. week?
3. month?
4. 3 months?
5. 12 months?

Obviously, there are some you've not talked to for 12+ months who'd welcome you warmly if you showed up at their place today looking for somewhere to sleep, you're close despite lack of contact. But there'll also be some you talk to every day who'd be disturbed just at a lunch invite. So it evens out, thus my description of a "rough proxy."

Now compare these numbers with your LameScroll "friends" or WokedIn "connections".

Sure, there is a lot of ambiguity about closeness. But to the original topic, I don't think one has to know someone all that closely to care about them as a person and/or regard them as a decent human being.

For example, among transgender people I said I know is V. The main way I know her is that we serve on the same church committee. So we've had some discussions and swapped some stories, but she's an acquaintance at best. She's been helpful and clear in supporting our committee work. She is an older lady, and as she has put it, she doesn't even identify as a transgender woman. She just identifies as a woman.

Even though I don't know her much, I don't like the idea of her being called a freak or sexual predator simply for being transgender. I regularly see the sort of language tossed about, and I think it is completely misplaced based on my experience with people like her.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on May 10, 2023, 10:46:21 AM
I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned. I do not want to know who or what other people are attracted to. I am living a happier life in ignorance of what other posters last had an orgasm from.  So when someone rolls up and announces their various fetishes in public and how they're proud of them, I automatically dislike that person. The people who are just living their lives and doing their thing in private, more power to em as long as whatever floats their boat is involving consenting adults.

That is how I simultaneously hold the positions of "we should let gay people get married" and "we should not let gay people roll down the street on a rainbow float with twelve year old boys in dresses twerking on them".  I also would not want Quentin Tarantino to roll down the street on a giant foot shaped float while doing a song and dance about making actresses let him lick their feet. Keep that shit to yourself.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on May 10, 2023, 12:05:14 PM
I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned. I do not want to know who or what other people are attracted to. I am living a happier life in ignorance of what other posters last had an orgasm from.  So when someone rolls up and announces their various fetishes in public and how they're proud of them, I automatically dislike that person. The people who are just living their lives and doing their thing in private, more power to em as long as whatever floats their boat is involving consenting adults.

That is how I simultaneously hold the positions of "we should let gay people get married" and "we should not let gay people roll down the street on a rainbow float with twelve year old boys in dresses twerking on them".  I also would not want Quentin Tarantino to roll down the street on a giant foot shaped float while doing a song and dance about making actresses let him lick their feet. Keep that shit to yourself.
I totally agree. I have all kinds of friends, so tolerance with possible acceptance and friendship are not a problem. Mind you, for some reason, they keep this stuff to themselves. It's almost like they don't build their whole identity around their sexual preferences. Tolerance land is boring as it ought to be.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 10, 2023, 12:07:41 PM
I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned.

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2023, 12:29:49 PM
I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned.

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

Yeah, it's why you see straight men starting conversations like this: "As a straight man", and claiming that everything else revolves around their sex and sexuality.

No Jhkim, governments listing your sex in your documents is for legal reasons, to know who not to search if you commit a crime. Would you claim that since your identification has a photo that means you're a narcissist?

Stop being disingenuous, only the alphabet soup people (which doesn't include all the gays, lesbians, bisexuals or even trans) think their sexuality or "gender" identity (something exclusive to the group) is a central part of their personality, so much so they have to constantly speak about it and put pronouns in their bios.

You're intentionally conflating identity as in the legal concept with identity as with who someone is in their own mind.

You're a gamer, does that define your whole concept of self? I bet not.

But for the pronoun wearers their sexuality, "gender" does define their whole concept of self. Same for the racial identitarians.

Now try again but without the disingenuousness.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on May 10, 2023, 12:36:24 PM
No Jhkim, governments listing your sex in your documents is for legal reasons, to know who not to search if you commit a crime. Would you claim that since your identification has a photo that means you're a narcissist?
"Attention all units: Be on the lookout for a man, 5'-10", white and gay. Repeat: a white man, a gay man."

The alphabet people would lose their shit. LOL.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on May 10, 2023, 12:42:38 PM
I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned.

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.
So what? This has nothing to do with sexual preference. Besides, the state has interest in knowing males and females. For identification purposes, as GeekyBugle says. Also for resource planning purposes. I.e., we need more OBGYNs because female population is increasing, maybe incentivize med students to become OBGYNs.

Male + Female = Baby is fundamental to the stability and prosperity of society. Sexual preference? Not really, aside from taking people out of said equation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on May 10, 2023, 01:50:08 PM
Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

That's a weakness of the word choice of "identity", when it could more accurately be stated as "lifestyle".  I think it was deliberate, too, because it implies that the speaker, when going on at length about their queer polycules, has no say in it, but it's simply an inherent part of themselves.  But if you go and buy a bunch of rainbow merch, the entire line of Bad Dragon dildos, and a custom license plate SO GHEY, at that point it's a lifestyle.

So yes, let us reframe things accurately as lifestyle.  My sex is obviously part of my overall identity, but it is not my lifestyle.  You don't see me coming in with a big sex symbol for my user avatar, I don't have my sexual preferences lined up in a post signature in convenient flag form, I have never mentioned my pronouns.  Nor have I driven up to the local middle school with a bus full of strippers so they can dance around in front of the kids to "teach and celebrate my identity".

The documentary Trekkies covered one woman who went around to her day job in Starfleet uniform, like every day.  I consider this to be the equivalent of that; somebody taking what should be a personal matter and mashing it in the faces of everyone who has the misfortune of encountering them.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on May 10, 2023, 02:22:25 PM
Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

You say all this crap but forget a key component: it's pretty obvious there are differences between boys and girls. When you see a man who claims he's a woman, THAT is where the root of all this stupidity arises. Claiming normal people are someone oppressing a man because they call him sir when he's CLEARLY a woman!!!! is called "mental illness". Are you too much of a dope to realize the only people causing all these issues are in fact the trannies? Labeling normal people "CIS" or whatever the fuck terms they say is a perfect example. Creating bullshit terms because they want to normalize something that is clearly abnormal.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 10, 2023, 02:30:43 PM
This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.
Does the MIB agency know you're from another planet? Who the fuck does this?
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2023, 02:45:48 PM
This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.
Does the MIB agency know you're from another planet? Who the fuck does this?

Nobody, but he knows it and is trying to derail the conversation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 10, 2023, 04:15:49 PM
Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

So yes, let us reframe things accurately as lifestyle.  My sex is obviously part of my overall identity, but it is not my lifestyle.  You don't see me coming in with a big sex symbol for my user avatar, I don't have my sexual preferences lined up in a post signature in convenient flag form, I have never mentioned my pronouns.

Hi, Valatar. First of all, thanks for acknowledging the identity part. As for lifestyle... 

Traditionally, most people do signal their sex in things like clothes, hairstyle, makeup, and mannerisms. For example, someone may carefully do up their long hair, paint their nails, wear a dress, and put on makeup to go out. I'd say that they are engaging in a lifestyle related to their sex.

To most of society, this is perfectly acceptable as long as the person is a non-transgender woman. If a man does the same thing, then he is often considered a freak and his appearance may be considered indecent and inappropriate for children.

---

Now, some people may argue that this difference is right. But regardless, we should hopefully be able to agree that this is both an identity and a lifestyle. Traditional society has coded gender roles, and the proper behavior, dress, and other signals for gender are taught from a very early age. Regardless of the value that one assigns to it, that is true.

All societies have such gender coding, though the expression isn't always the same across different cultures. A number of traditional societies have a social category different than traditional male/female, like hijras in India or winkte among the Lakota.

One can argue that transgender people are wrong for their behavior, but they didn't introduce the idea of gender as an important identity and lifestyle.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Valatar on May 10, 2023, 04:33:56 PM
Furries (and possibly others, but they're the ones I heard of it from) have what they call 'lifestylers', the people who are wearing collars, tails, etc, and/or acting in ways they consider animalistic, out in public on a day to day basis.  This is not necessarily the same as the fursuiters who have the full-body costumes, as those are apparently hot as hell and unfeasible to have on for extended periods, but they're somewhat akin.  I consider many trans people to be doing the same thing: acting out a fetish in public.  I say this because many of the examples I've seen of trans women are not dressing like a normal person of the opposite sex, they're dressing up in an uncanny valley stylized manner that exaggerates a certain stereotypical appearance.  To be more precise, they're dressed like a thirteen-year-old girl out of a Target catalog.  No woman of an equivalent age would be caught dead in most of those clothes.

The stereotypical effeminate gay man of last century is of a similar cloth; they're broadcasting because they're getting some exhibitionist kick out of doing so.  Do I care if they're gay?  No.  But do I want to sit down next to someone looking like Boy George on a bad day?  Also no.  I'm not inflicting my sexual proclivities on them, and would appreciate the favor be returned.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on May 10, 2023, 05:06:19 PM
One can argue that transgender people are wrong for their behavior, but they didn't introduce the idea of gender as an important identity and lifestyle.
How do you know?

Isn't is possible that an ancient, classical, or medieval man who took to women's clothing originated this entire discussion?

It certainly never consciously occurred to me until the trans situation became mainstream.

I think you're viewing this from a 2023 academic lens. The typical regular person 100, 500, or 2000 years ago basically thought "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" and that was the end of it. Tussles over clothing and lifestyle had more to do with status within the male or female domains than any kind of high-minded ideas of gender expression.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 10, 2023, 05:36:52 PM
Sex and gender were 100% interchangeable until 10 years ago. Gender was just a way to avoid saying the rude word 'sex,' and certain people have spun the myth that sex and gender are these disconnected states.

People are interested in the gender of babies because secondary characteristics haven't yet emerged, and we use gendered language. Spinning this in to some kind of larger evidence that gender is confusing is nonsense. 99% of men and women are obvious in their sex/gender, in fact humans are excellent in telling the difference.

Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

When it comes to the slow collapse of the West, and the accompanying explosion of ultra, even desperate, individualism as the prime good; it's up in the air over what is the chicken and what is the egg.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 10, 2023, 05:53:57 PM
I consider many trans people to be doing the same thing: acting out a fetish in public.  I say this because many of the examples I've seen of trans women are not dressing like a normal person of the opposite sex, they're dressing up in an uncanny valley stylized manner that exaggerates a certain stereotypical appearance.  To be more precise, they're dressed like a thirteen-year-old girl out of a Target catalog.  No woman of an equivalent age would be caught dead in most of those clothes.

That hasn't been my experience among the transgender people I know. When you talk about examples you've seen -- where are you seeing those examples?

As far as sexualization, straight American women often have sexualized fashion like cleavage-revealing necklines that aren't seen on 13-year-old girls. In my experience, young straight American women have by far the most sexualized clothing. It's just that is considered normal and acceptable rather than a fetish.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 10, 2023, 07:15:32 PM
Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

Right. The social mores are that men and women should present differently via hairstyle and clothing. That's the core of my disagreement with Valatar, who suggested that only modern LGBT people make a public display of their gender. Almost everyone, LGBT or not, makes a public display of their gender.

---

Sex and gender were 100% interchangeable until 10 years ago. Gender was just a way to avoid saying the rude word 'sex,' and certain people have spun the myth that sex and gender are these disconnected states.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this -- but there have always been transgender people since ancient times. As I mentioned, some traditional societies had accepted categories for transgender people like the winkte among the Lakota or the hijra in India. Pundit has proclaimed how his RPG Arrows of Indra is the first to have a transgender character on the cover, based on a hijra character. Other societies have suppressed them.

It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

What's changed is that there has been growing resistance to discrimination against them, and subsequent backlash. Not all transgender people are part of the push for rights. V in my church isn't involved in any activism, nor was my late friend Heather. But many of them are activists, because they have had to deal with a lot of hostility over the years and consider it unjust.

As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2023, 07:58:41 PM
Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

Right. The social mores are that men and women should present differently via hairstyle and clothing. That's the core of my disagreement with Valatar, who suggested that only modern LGBT people make a public display of their gender. Almost everyone, LGBT or not, makes a public display of their gender.

---

Sex and gender were 100% interchangeable until 10 years ago. Gender was just a way to avoid saying the rude word 'sex,' and certain people have spun the myth that sex and gender are these disconnected states.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with this -- but there have always been transgender people since ancient times. As I mentioned, some traditional societies had accepted categories for transgender people like the winkte among the Lakota or the hijra in India. Pundit has proclaimed how his RPG Arrows of Indra is the first to have a transgender character on the cover, based on a hijra character. Other societies have suppressed them.

It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

What's changed is that there has been growing resistance to discrimination against them, and subsequent backlash. Not all transgender people are part of the push for rights. V in my church isn't involved in any activism, nor was my late friend Heather. But many of them are activists, because they have had to deal with a lot of hostility over the years and consider it unjust.

As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

Manliness is opposite to effeminate

Dressing like a woman is either a fetish or a sign that you're effeminate, which makes it in both cases unmanly, because men in the west haven't wore makeup in centuries and dresses never.

Is a Tomboy being feminine? Nope, it's why we call her a tomboy.

But you do keep with the disingenuousness and the word salad.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 10, 2023, 08:37:35 PM
As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

Manliness is opposite to effeminate

Dressing like a woman is either a fetish or a sign that you're effeminate, which makes it in both cases unmanly, because men in the west haven't wore makeup in centuries and dresses never.

I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. You're referring to social mores. If someone who fails to follow the social mores for men is unmanly or less of a man -- then part of the definition of being a man is following the social mores. That's defining gender at least in part socially rather than just biologically.

This isn't compatible with saying that gender/sex is purely biological.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Eirikrautha on May 10, 2023, 08:52:38 PM
Traditionally, most people do signal their sex in things like clothes, hairstyle, makeup, and mannerisms. For example, someone may carefully do up their long hair, paint their nails, wear a dress, and put on makeup to go out. I'd say that they are engaging in a lifestyle related to their sex.

And you'd be wrong, as usual.  They are not engaging in their "lifestyle."  They are signaling their sexual availability.  A twink doesn't wear a tank top as a "lifestyle"; he wears it to advertise.  Ditto that for a fit twenty-something hetero female.  Your subtle conflation of sex and lifestyle is part of your disingenuousness.  Sexual displays are sexual.

Quote from: jhkim
As far as sexualization, straight American women often have sexualized fashion like cleavage-revealing necklines that aren't seen on 13-year-old girls. In my experience, young straight American women have by far the most sexualized clothing. It's just that is considered normal and acceptable rather than a fetish.

This is also your fault.  The left in America has been fighting to normalize personal sexual displays since the 1960s.  It is NOT a ever-present feature of societies.  And if you want to argue the point, I'm happy to flood this thread with picture after picture of normal public attire and bathing suits worn on public beaches in the 1940s and 50s.  And before your cherry-picking lying ass bothers to find one picture or two, your one or two counter examples don't disprove the general rule.  Now you want to argue that the sexual displays you've been advocating for somehow justify the forcing of the Overton Window even further towards letting mentally ill people flaunt their fetishes in public.  The "young straight American women" are just as fucked up as the trans people are.

Quote from: jhkim
Right. The social mores are that men and women should present differently via hairstyle and clothing. That's the core of my disagreement with Valatar, who suggested that only modern LGBT people make a public display of their gender. Almost everyone, LGBT or not, makes a public display of their gender.

No.  Is long hair a male or female hairstyle?  A ponytail?  A shaved head?  Seems like I've seen both men and women wear both.  Are you going to tell a biker he looks like a woman because of his ponytail?  So your argumentum ad populum is invalid, because most people today don't view these as sex specific indicators.

Most people don't make a "public display of their gender" because their sex is obvious.  People who display primary and secondary sexual characteristics (including simulated ones like make-up or cleavage) are doing so to signal sexual availability (whether they intend to or not).  And these are physical, biological, signals.  They are not cultural.  This isn't the color of funerary attire (black in the West, white in Japan), which can be argued to be primarily culturally based.  Blush simulates the rush of blood due to sexual arousal.  Eye shadow simulates pupil dilation via contrast (see previous point).  Shall we discuss cleavage and what it simulates?  All of these are displays that date back to the ancient Egyptians or earlier.  The fact that one minor tribe of natives somewhere might not have used one or two of these is no argument against the biological purpose of these displays.  This is the reason why parents have strongly regulated and cautioned their daughters about the use of cosmetics and revealing clothing, as it sends biological signals the child might not mean or understand.  Of course, this is why the groomers on the left have pushed for the sexualization of children, because of their ingrained biological connection of youth to fertility (but, being leftists, they always have to pervert these things to the greatest degree possible).  Women dress like whores today because the left has been pushing the stupidity that sexual displays are symbols of power and independence (especially among women).  So it's no wonder that you would advocate for sexual displays by men pretending to be women as if it was a "lifestyle."  But it's not.  It's a sexual display.  A kindergarten teacher shouldn't be wearing fishnet stockings or assless chaps at school, because it is an inappropriate sexual display in front of children.  Drag queens and trans people shouldn't be reading to kindergarteners for the same reason.  We need to keep the sexually-fixated mentally ill as far away from our children as possible.

Quote from: jhkim
It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

This is a bald-faced lie.  None of those examples or cultures described their cross-dressers as women trapped in men's bodies, or anything even approaching that.  Transvestites 40 years ago didn't claim to be real women (and I knew some... unfortunately).

From nih.gov:
Quote
What is a hijra in Indian culture?
The hijra (eunuch/transvestite) is an institutionalized third gender role in India. Hijra are neither male nor female, but contain elements of both. As devotees of the Mother Goddess Bahuchara Mata, their sacred powers are contingent upon their sexuality. In reality, however, many hijras are prostitutes.
It's not a "man born in a woman's body", which is the direct descriptor of modern transgender ideologies and justifications.  So you are either dramatically ignorant, or outright lying, when you claim that modern transgenderism is anything other than a new phenomenon.  A chariot and a steam locomotive both have wheels and both are ground transportation, but they're not the same thing.

Quote from: jhkim
If someone who fails to follow the social mores for men is unmanly or less of a man -- then part of the definition of being a man is following the social mores. That's defining gender at least in part socially rather than just biologically.

Testosterone increases aggressiveness, risk-taking, physical strength, et al.  Men have many times more testosterone than females, especially during puberty, which fundamentally changes the biological structure of their brains and bodies (there are over 462 biological differences between the male and female body, with many in the brain).  No society views passiveness, submissiveness, and weakness as male qualities (which is why disciplines like Buddhism which feature some similarities to a few of these qualities stress the difficulty of reaching such states, as they are contrary to men's nature).  So an effeminate man is categorized by his disconnect between his behavior and biology.  It's directly defining social roles by biology.  It's one of the reasons why Western societies are collapsing, because they have completely refused to recognized social roles based on biology (just ask the Swedes how well they've been able to conquer the "inequalities" in employment vis a vis male nurses and female engineers).

You know, if your opinion was in any way right or just, you wouldn't have to lie, obfuscate, redefine terms, and conflate unlike things in order to prove your point.  Which is, I guess, the ultimate repudiation of your statements here....
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Elfdart on May 10, 2023, 09:58:54 PM
Were the insurrectionists that stormed the Tennessee capital (with the participation of 3 elected democrat politicians) and who claimed that Audrey Hale, who murdered six people (three of them young children), was a "victim" just some randos?

There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

As far as the "trannies" are concerned, every movement is going to have a fringe. That doesn't mean the movement itself is wrong, any more than the Weather Underground bombings retroactively excuse the Vietnam War.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2023, 10:06:06 PM
As far as word meaning, if sex and gender are the same, then you run into the ambiguity of biology and social mores. If sex/gender just means biological fact, then a transgender man is objectively wrong to declare themselves a man -- but it also means that there's nothing unmanly about having long hair and wearing a dress and makeup.

Manliness is opposite to effeminate

Dressing like a woman is either a fetish or a sign that you're effeminate, which makes it in both cases unmanly, because men in the west haven't wore makeup in centuries and dresses never.

I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. You're referring to social mores. If someone who fails to follow the social mores for men is unmanly or less of a man -- then part of the definition of being a man is following the social mores. That's defining gender at least in part socially rather than just biologically.

This isn't compatible with saying that gender/sex is purely biological.

LOL WUT!?

Nope, acting like a woman makes you less masculine because you're acting effeminate, because women's femininity is a sexual signal of sexual maturity and availability, see Eirikrautha's excellent response above.

Likewise being manly is a sexual signal of sexual maturity and availability to the women around that you're a worthy catch, a good provider and protector worthy of her time to breed your children. Which ties to the value of purity which you also deny because you're a believer in the tabula rasa.

So, a man dressing as a woman is signaling to men who like other men his availability for sex, even if you would like to deny it. Your constant push to normalize deviancy means that now those who get aroused from dressing like the opposite sex roam our streets and are pushed down our children's throats.

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

Men are attracted to certain female attributes, ergo females have evolved to have and display such, the same is true in reverse, women are attracted to certain male attributes so men have evolved to have and display them.

Only now, under the lefts constant push for degeneracy, we see predatory men disguising themselves as male feminists to get close to their prey.

And yet, the same feminists hate themselves because they find the traditionally masculine men attractive and the male allies make them go drier than the Gobi.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/ (https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/) Click on the link to the scientific study that proves me right.

Even leftist men https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/right-wing-women-are-sexier/ (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/right-wing-women-are-sexier/)

So it's a balancing act, be manly but not fall into the pittraps of uncleanliness, hyper-aggression, etc.
Be feminine but not a whore, etc.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 10, 2023, 10:25:25 PM
Were the insurrectionists that stormed the Tennessee capital (with the participation of 3 elected democrat politicians) and who claimed that Audrey Hale, who murdered six people (three of them young children), was a "victim" just some randos?

There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

Both groups did exactly the same thing, except the pro-trans-mass-murderer side didn't get shot at by the police.

Quote
As far as the "trannies" are concerned, every movement is going to have a fringe.

Except they're not the fringe. The "fringe" in Trans Activism are the people who just want to live quiet normal lives, and think that sterilizing and mutilating preteen children based on the recommendation of some "queer" schoolteacher wanting to get views on tiktok is probably a bad idea.
The "mainstream" of Trans activism now are the ones who are posting pictures of guns, saying "Trans Day Of Vengeance", holding up Audrey Hale as an innocent victim (those 9 year old christian children were basically committing GENOCIDE on he/him by existing and refusing to be queer), and advocating for open murder of their ideological opponents.


Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 10, 2023, 11:35:21 PM
There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

You know, if you argued that both events were attempted Insurrection, you'd at least be morally consistent, from your own POV. But instead you just wrote "it's OK when we do it," but via a massive paragraph.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 11, 2023, 02:34:44 AM
It's not that transgender people suddenly sprang into existence 10 years ago. They've always been around -- called various other names like transvestites, transsexuals, etc. in earlier times. There were plenty of cross-identifying people in colonial times, Victorian times, etc.

This is a bald-faced lie.  None of those examples or cultures described their cross-dressers as women trapped in men's bodies, or anything even approaching that.  Transvestites 40 years ago didn't claim to be real women (and I knew some... unfortunately).

From nih.gov:
Quote
What is a hijra in Indian culture?
The hijra (eunuch/transvestite) is an institutionalized third gender role in India. Hijra are neither male nor female, but contain elements of both. As devotees of the Mother Goddess Bahuchara Mata, their sacred powers are contingent upon their sexuality. In reality, however, many hijras are prostitutes.
It's not a "man born in a woman's body", which is the direct descriptor of modern transgender ideologies and justifications.  So you are either dramatically ignorant, or outright lying, when you claim that modern transgenderism is anything other than a new phenomenon.  A chariot and a steam locomotive both have wheels and both are ground transportation, but they're not the same thing.

I didn't say that these are all exactly the same. However, I consider them under the category of transgender - which is an umbrella, like ground transportation. Pundit, for example, referred to hijra as "transgender". Modern transgender people have a lot of different ideologies and beliefs, and they don't all dress the same way either (to Valatar's earlier point). There are hijra in modern-day India, and I'm sure they don't all have the same ideology or beliefs.

My church friend V is an older Christian woman who is mostly quiet and retiring. My late friend Heather was a soccer-playing, RPG-playing atheist engineer. My friend J is a history-loving pagan teacher. They all have very different beliefs and ideology.

There are plenty of transgender people I don't like or I don't agree with. I played a short campaign with two of J's friends who were very raunchy, and I didn't like that. There are assholes in any group of people. But most of the transgender people I know are just regular folk.


People who display primary and secondary sexual characteristics (including simulated ones like make-up or cleavage) are doing so to signal sexual availability (whether they intend to or not).  And these are physical, biological, signals.  They are not cultural.  This isn't the color of funerary attire (black in the West, white in Japan), which can be argued to be primarily culturally based.  Blush simulates the rush of blood due to sexual arousal.  Eye shadow simulates pupil dilation via contrast (see previous point).
A kindergarten teacher shouldn't be wearing fishnet stockings or assless chaps at school, because it is an inappropriate sexual display in front of children.  Drag queens and trans people shouldn't be reading to kindergarteners for the same reason.  We need to keep the sexually-fixated mentally ill as far away from our children as possible.

I don't think this covers the vast majority of social gender-coding, though. Even modest, demure, old-fashioned young girl clothes are still very distinct from young boy clothes. Baby clothes are clearly gender-coded. And married women and even elderly grandmas still have very distinctive gender-coded clothing and mannerisms.

A woman kindergarten teacher in a modest, old-fashioned dress is still clearly gender coding. They dress very differently from how a man teacher would dress. Old-fashioned traditional women still wear makeup as well, including blush and eye shadow.

For example, V at my church is on our adult education committee - not involved with kids. But if she wanted to, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't read or volunteer in the youth Sunday school.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 11, 2023, 03:01:27 AM
I don't think this covers the vast majority of social gender-coding, though.

Gender coding isn't a thing. Men and women wearing different clothing is largely due to sexual dimorphism meaning different things look better on male or female bodies. People wear things that will make them look good to others, it's not a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 11, 2023, 06:28:59 AM
I don't think this covers the vast majority of social gender-coding, though.

Gender coding isn't a thing. Men and women wearing different clothing is largely due to sexual dimorphism meaning different things look better on male or female bodies. People wear things that will make them look good to others, it's not a conspiracy.
Ah, but that's the best part. The argument they make is that ultimately sexual dimorphism itself does not exist.

Which of course flies in the face of everything from basic biology to fashion, but hey, gotta make sure they get their validation.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 11, 2023, 11:45:46 AM
I don't think this covers the vast majority of social gender-coding, though.

Gender coding isn't a thing. Men and women wearing different clothing is largely due to sexual dimorphism meaning different things look better on male or female bodies. People wear things that will make them look good to others, it's not a conspiracy.

I don't think that explains most gender coding, like the difference in boys and girls clothing from pre-teen down to infant. Nor grandmas vs grandpas. Sexual dimorphism could play a role - like in emphasized hips and lower necklines in adult women's clothing -- but those are a small piece of the picture. There are a large number of signals. None are crucial by themselves, but they all add up. Hair styles, earrings, nail polish, speech patterns, and more all have different gender coding.

Moreover, the codes have some similarities but also many differences in different cultures. i.e. The difference between a man's kilt and a woman's skirt in Scotland, or between men's and women's kimonos in Japan. I'm a little surprised at your take given that earlier you were clear that gender presentation were social mores based on living in a community, rather than individual choices to look good.

Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Brad on May 11, 2023, 12:07:43 PM
This discussion is hilarious. Since I have direct experience with all this crap, I shall interject some facts. I have a 4 year old boy and a 7 year old girl. I have treated the same since birth, with daily beatings being a part of their lives just to keep them in line. Both are extremely independent to the point of being obnoxious about trivial things, like what sort of chips they want with their lunch or what kind of toothpaste they'll use. They get super irritated being told what to do about ANYTHING. I suppose this is typical behavior from a young child. Since about the age of 1 1/2, the girl has developed her own sense of style and has a wide variety of clothes that she has deemed appropriate to wear. She likes pink of course, sparkly crap, unicorns, all that dumbass shit. Makeup and other nonsense. She likes Barbies and dolls and asked for one of those big ones from Target for her birthday. For Christmas she wanted a Lego set, but it was some sort of animal hospital thing because she wants to be a veterinarian. When she was 2 she wanted to be an elephant, so I guess this is a natural outgrowth of that. Contrast with the boy who has become obsessed with guns and parachuting and the military and wants to be a Marine Recon sniper when he grows up. Or a doctor. Or a cowboy. When he doesn't want to eat his dinner I'll say that's the sort of food a cowboy would eat and then he's good with it. "Do cowboys like this?" is a common question. He also wants to be an astronaut and make boobytraps because that's what Mr. Home Alone did (at least he calls him Kevin finally). He also likes wearing jeans and button down shirts with his cowboy boots because that's what cowboys wear. And sometimes tank tops when we go to the pool or the beach since he'll get "vitamin D".

They are two typical young children who are good examples of the differences between boys and girls, men and women. I have done nothing to enforce any sort of behavior that differentiates them. THEY decided to act like this. And the reason is pretty obvious: they have a pretty normal childhood with two normal parents (well, maybe I am a fucking weirdo, but at least I'm not some fucking weak ass beta male). I have seen NO ONE I associate with in any capacity who has children who are "confused" about their sex. and it's painfully apparent it's because no one here is a fucking mentally ill retard who is making their kids confused. "Oh you like pink? Lemme get those hormone blockers!" The boy plays Barbies with his sister...and you know why? Because they are siblings and he wants to play with her in any way he can, so he decided to play Barbies. Most of the time they just jump on the trampoline together, or go in their playhouse and look at the birds, until the squabbles happen and after that it's a lot of punching, pinching, and yelling at each other. Am I a bad parent because I didn't buy my son a dress because he plays Barbies with his older sister who he idolizes?

Anyone who thinks this tranny stuff is organic needs a lobotomy. It's being forced on kids by their fucked up parents. 100%.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: rytrasmi on May 11, 2023, 12:44:41 PM
I don't think that explains most gender coding, like the difference in boys and girls clothing from pre-teen down to infant. Nor grandmas vs grandpas. Sexual dimorphism could play a role - like in emphasized hips and lower necklines in adult women's clothing -- but those are a small piece of the picture. There are a large number of signals. None are crucial by themselves, but they all add up. Hair styles, earrings, nail polish, speech patterns, and more all have different gender coding.
jhkim, with all due respect, you're overthinking this. The vast majority of people instinctively conform to their gender. It's people who study this from a distance who invent concepts like "gender coding." Is gender coding real and what does it mean? Who fucking cares, we have eyes and brains and we don't need academic constructs to think or talk about this stuff.

The coyote eats field mice in late autumn because they're plump and satisfying. It is entirely ignorant of its place in the food web. It knows nil about biology and it doesn't even speak English.

"Sexual dimorphism could play a role" - Of course it fucking plays a role! You can identify someone as male or female a mile away with 98% accuracy. Gait, size, shape, posture, you name it. "Emphasized" hips? Have you ever seen a woman? They have goddamn hips for miles and it's awesome.

You need more empathy for the average person, not some gender studies academic.

I'm usually pretty interested to read what you have to say because you offer a thoughtful perspective that is contrary to a lot of other people here. But you are increasingly detached from common sense on this topic. You may not care, so what. Just my opinion, take that for what it's worth.

"Do cowboys like this?" is a common question.
Your kids sound hilarious and fun.

My son once saw a girl with mermaid flippers at the pool and loudly proclaimed "I want to be a man-maid!" It was a hilarious nothing, and we certainly did not rush out to have gender counseling. Twenty years ago everyone would have laughed. Now there's a significant subset of idiots who would act on comments like that.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 11, 2023, 12:57:19 PM
I don't think this covers the vast majority of social gender-coding, though.

Gender coding isn't a thing. Men and women wearing different clothing is largely due to sexual dimorphism meaning different things look better on male or female bodies. People wear things that will make them look good to others, it's not a conspiracy.

I don't think that explains most gender coding, like the difference in boys and girls clothing from pre-teen down to infant. Nor grandmas vs grandpas. Sexual dimorphism could play a role - like in emphasized hips and lower necklines in adult women's clothing -- but those are a small piece of the picture. There are a large number of signals. None are crucial by themselves, but they all add up. Hair styles, earrings, nail polish, speech patterns, and more all have different gender coding.

Moreover, the codes have some similarities but also many differences in different cultures. i.e. The difference between a man's kilt and a woman's skirt in Scotland, or between men's and women's kimonos in Japan. I'm a little surprised at your take given that earlier you were clear that gender presentation were social mores based on living in a community, rather than individual choices to look good.

Also, men and women presenting their sex via hairstyles and clothing is part of living in a community. Being part of a society means conforming to the acceptable mores of that society. We in the West have always had a wider range of acceptable behaviors than most peoples, but the limitations are what maintains social cohesion.

Have you EVER met a child? Little girls want to be like their mom and little boys want to be like their dad (latter like some "hero" the child admires).

Now think for a minute and try and explain (without using any conspiracy theory) why is it that children's clothes are like they are.

Old people have been dressing in a certain way all their life, furthermore the instinct to be attractive to the opposite sex is still there.

There's no conspiracy to make 99.99% of the population normal, it's just like it is, was and always will be because it's what increases the chances of passing your genes, it's evolution.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 11, 2023, 01:57:23 PM

Anyone who thinks this tranny stuff is organic needs a lobotomy. It's being forced on kids by their fucked up parents. 100%.
Bullshit is organic too. :) But you're not wrong.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 11, 2023, 02:35:20 PM
I wonder why is it that the alarming rate at which the new generations identify as trannies is focused on the west? Especially in "progressive" areas, especially among the "progressives" in those areas? I'm sure all those other cultures are just as beautiful as the western one...

Seriously tho, if the increase was organic you wouldn't find it in clusters around those areas, I mean it's not like someone in a religious community in the USA can't move out of it by traveling a relatively short distance, it's not like they are going to be hunted down by their family for bringing them dishonor and sinning against the religion. Unlike in certain parts of the world.

But you don't see an increase even among the Zapotecs, who have the Muxes. You see it among the educated people in Mexico City tho, I wonder why.

Must be that the Zapotecs are REALLY transphobic or something.

Despite the "progressive's" claims you don't see it among the more primitive cultures either, you ONLY see it in the west in clusters among the more "progressive" people.

But I'm sure it's totally not a social contagion or anything.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 11, 2023, 02:41:42 PM
As for the way people dress... Sure, that's cultural, and yet you didn't find thousands of trannies among the Kilt wearing Scots prior to the advent of the woke ideology.

Both men and women used "skirts" different type of them tho, and you find the same among other cultures, in Japan both men and women used to wear kimonos, but they were different.

Even among the cultures Jhkim and his cadre love to cite as examples of having a "third" gender you don't find them in huge amounts prior to the advent of the woke religion.

But I'm sure that the one common thread among all those places where the trannie population is exploding has nothing to do with the increase in people identifying as trannies.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jhkim on May 11, 2023, 03:10:17 PM
You need more empathy for the average person, not some gender studies academic.

I'm usually pretty interested to read what you have to say because you offer a thoughtful perspective that is contrary to a lot of other people here. But you are increasingly detached from common sense on this topic. You may not care, so what. Just my opinion, take that for what it's worth.

Thanks, rytrasmi. From my view, I feel like I started this mostly talking about just my personal experience and the people I knew. And then people came at me with terms like "sexual dimorphism" and "social mores" and questioning my experience based on statistics, so I replied in kind about that side of the topic.

But you're right that such is disconnected. Maybe I shouldn't have replied on that topic and just stuck to personal experience.


They are two typical young children who are good examples of the differences between boys and girls, men and women. I have done nothing to enforce any sort of behavior that differentiates them. THEY decided to act like this. And the reason is pretty obvious: they have a pretty normal childhood with two normal parents (well, maybe I am a fucking weirdo, but at least I'm not some fucking weak ass beta male). I have seen NO ONE I associate with in any capacity who has children who are "confused" about their sex. and it's painfully apparent it's because no one here is a fucking mentally ill retard who is making their kids confused.

Brad, your kids sounds like fun. They sound like typical kids, much like most kids I know. But even with the same parenting, kids can turn out quite differently.

A lot of the transgender people I know grew up in conservative households. My co-owner Marie is around my age (early 50s) and grew up in small-town east Texas. She was more into geeky boy things like computers and rockets instead of cowboys growing up, but she never did anything girly or was encouraged to such. My former co-GM Emma grew up in a conservative, religious Baptist household and grew up going to Sunday school, but she is now quite anti-Christian. On the other hand, my church friend V retains the Christian faith that she grew up with, but now goes to a more liberal church. I don't know much about her childhood, but she is in her mid-sixties and grew up in a Christian household in the Midwest - I don't imagine it was transgender-friendly.


A lot of kids turn out typical -- largely by definition. But some kids aren't typical. That's always been true. A lot of girls are into lace and princesses from an early age. But some girls are tomboys and aren't into that stuff. That doesn't mean they're transgender, but it also doesn't mean that the parents did something wrong. It's fine for girls to be tomboys. Likewise, some kids turn out gay, and there's nothing wrong with that. And a very few kids turn out transgender.

I've seen some hand-wringing of parents over how their kids turn out different than typical in various ways. And it's good to be thoughtful parents, but some kids just turn out different. I know a liberal couple in my church whose son is conservative, into pickup trucks and guns, and recently joined the military. They still love him and support him. I remember his bridging ceremony from our church a few years ago. On the other hand, my cousin's kid J went into the Air Force, but he came out as gay during that time, and now he runs a wine bar in Arizona with his husband.

My own son was always nerdy and loved books and animals. He's also into hip-hop dance. I think I certainly had an influence on him. He's into fantasy and RPGs, which certainly came from me. But he also has many differences. I was always into math. He's into literature, and he just finished his first year of grad school to become a librarian. I don't know how much was his genetics vs his upbringing vs his culture. But I also think he's a great kid and have no regrets about raising him.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Eirikrautha on May 11, 2023, 04:23:09 PM
You need more empathy for the average person, not some gender studies academic.

I'm usually pretty interested to read what you have to say because you offer a thoughtful perspective that is contrary to a lot of other people here. But you are increasingly detached from common sense on this topic. You may not care, so what. Just my opinion, take that for what it's worth.

Thanks, rytrasmi. From my view, I feel like I started this mostly talking about just my personal experience and the people I knew. And then people came at me with terms like "sexual dimorphism" and "social mores" and questioning my experience based on statistics, so I replied in kind about that side of the topic.

But you're right that such is disconnected. Maybe I shouldn't have replied on that topic and just stuck to personal experience.

No.  Your personal experience is irrelevant.  It is localized, biased, and the worst possible basis to make any kind of collective or societal decisions from.  If Newton had based his theories of gravity on his "experiences" with a feather, then he'd never had discovered anything useful.  The biggest problem with the left today is that they think their "lived experience" trumps reality.  It doesn't, and your personal experiences are worthless as a basis for decision-making, especially in terms of society-wide evaluations.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 11, 2023, 10:18:08 PM
I have seen NO ONE I associate with in any capacity who has children who are "confused" about their sex. and it's painfully apparent it's because no one here is a fucking mentally ill retard who is making their kids confused.
I've seen one, at my kids' school. From ages 8-10 she experienced: her parents divorcing, her grandfather (who lived 100m from her home, on the way to school) dying, and two years of every single school term being interrupted by lockdowns and "remote learning" (our state had the most lockdowns, and the most deaths). She also got chubby because each parent tried to be the Disney parent, she spent more time with her obese grandmother who fed her up, and of course many kids around 10-12yo chub up just before they spring up into puberty from 12-14yo. So she was the fattest girl in her class, and the first girl in her class to show signs of puberty.

Put all the normal stresses of entering puberty and being overwhelmed by hormones and feeling self-conscious, and entering into it first in your class, and add to them family stresses, interrupted schooling, and general society's anxiety from lockdowns, and you get a kid who proclaims that she has no gender and doesn't want to be called her gender-specific name, but a generic name of her choice. Her family seem to be going with that - I strongly suspect it'll all drop off when one summer she springs up three inches in height and she grows up a bit mentally. It takes any kid a while to get over parents splitting and grandparents dying, and it's taking everyone a while to get over the lockdowns and pandemic.

I don't think I'm reaching a lot to suggest that adolescents being uncomfortable with and self-conscious about their physical changes is a new phenomenon in human history. I think there's a reason we used to have rites of passage, where the adults of the same gender took the kid out into the bush and made them do uncomfortable things and told them stories and the old times and the gods and so on. These societies realised that the transition from child to adult isn't something that happens by itself without guidance. Some religions still have this, which is overall probably good.

So that's one - out of 380 or so kids at the school. Apart from that, the closest I've seen is a kid's dad at the school who wrote a children's book about a transgender teddy bear. His children weren't transgender, though.

I'm sure there'll be more at high school. Obviously gender identity is more of an issue when you have more visible signs of biological sex, like a hairy face or breasts. Likewise sexuality isn't really an issue for kids, but becomes one once they're horny adolescents.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 11, 2023, 10:49:52 PM
No.  Your personal experience is irrelevant.  It is localized, biased, and the worst possible basis to make any kind of collective or societal decisions from.  If Newton had based his theories of gravity on his "experiences" with a feather, then he'd never had discovered anything useful.  The biggest problem with the left today is that they think their "lived experience" trumps reality.  It doesn't, and your personal experiences are worthless as a basis for decision-making, especially in terms of society-wide evaluations.

Newton had an apple fall on his head, while reading a book and wearing a wig, which made him invent gravity, so people stopped being randomly flung out in to space.

Without Newton's "lived experience," we'd still all be randomly flung out in to space. Follow the science.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Elfdart on May 12, 2023, 12:03:47 AM
There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".
Both groups did exactly the same thing, except the pro-trans-mass-murderer side didn't get shot at by the police.

Name someone at the protests in the Tennessee state house who:


Can't do it, can you?

And while you're at it, can you give examples of where the "Tennessee Three" or their supporters condoned the murder of school kids by that creep?

Quote
Quote
As far as the "trannies" are concerned, every movement is going to have a fringe.


Except they're not the fringe. The "fringe" in Trans Activism are the people who just want to live quiet normal lives, and think that sterilizing and mutilating preteen children based on the recommendation of some "queer" schoolteacher wanting to get views on tiktok is probably a bad idea.

Do you read this shit somewhere or are you making it up as you go?


Quote
The "mainstream" of Trans activism now are the ones who are posting pictures of guns, saying "Trans Day Of Vengeance",

I thought waving guns around and threatening elected officials was part of the Second Amendment -you know the one right-wingers jerk off over in spite of having never read it? Most people who dress and act like the opposite sex or even get sex change operations don't do that sort of thing and probably don't condone it.


Quote
holding up Audrey Hale as an innocent victim (those 9 year old christian children were basically committing GENOCIDE on he/him by existing and refusing to be queer), and advocating for open murder of their ideological opponents.

Like you, Brad and Baby Shark treat the Jan 6 fascists as heroes and martyrs and lie about their crimes? Pot, meet kettle.

Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Elfdart on May 12, 2023, 12:14:02 AM
There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".

You know, if you argued that both events were attempted Insurrection, you'd at least be morally consistent, from your own POV. But instead you just wrote "it's OK when we do it," but via a massive paragraph.

Were you born this stupid or did your parents drop-kick you head first down several flights of stairs when you were a child? Demonstrators who make noise are not the same as a mob that sent scores of police officers to the hospital. If you think the two are remotely comparable then you are a fascist fucktard.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: Grognard GM on May 12, 2023, 12:16:34 AM
Elfdart, here's an incredible photograph that may change your life.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WC8p7Lme-Bw/TwyiI9Sm14I/AAAAAAAAINc/BTzE6zwYCbU/s1600/apple-and-orange.jpg)
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 12, 2023, 04:41:51 AM
OK this has all gone way off topic. Let's end this branch of the discussion.
Title: Re: Enjoy.
Post by: jeff37923 on May 12, 2023, 10:48:54 PM
There were no "insurrectionists" in Tennessee, you silly drama queen. Funny how Jan 6 putsch apologists still think there was no insurrection when Trump's summoned mob beat police officers, ransacked the Capitol and called openly for members of Congress to be lynched, but you think some demonstrators who didn't even try to attack police officers, didn't vandalize the state house, didn't threaten anyone and didn't try to overturn an election are "insurrectionists".
Both groups did exactly the same thing, except the pro-trans-mass-murderer side didn't get shot at by the police.

Name someone at the protests in the Tennessee state house who:

  • Assaulted police officers
  • Damaged or destroyed property
  • Threatened bodily harm to others
  • Tried to stop certification of an election
  • Got arrested

Can't do it, can you?

And while you're at it, can you give examples of where the "Tennessee Three" or their supporters condoned the murder of school kids by that creep?

Quote
Quote
As far as the "trannies" are concerned, every movement is going to have a fringe.


Except they're not the fringe. The "fringe" in Trans Activism are the people who just want to live quiet normal lives, and think that sterilizing and mutilating preteen children based on the recommendation of some "queer" schoolteacher wanting to get views on tiktok is probably a bad idea.

Do you read this shit somewhere or are you making it up as you go?


Quote
The "mainstream" of Trans activism now are the ones who are posting pictures of guns, saying "Trans Day Of Vengeance",

I thought waving guns around and threatening elected officials was part of the Second Amendment -you know the one right-wingers jerk off over in spite of having never read it? Most people who dress and act like the opposite sex or even get sex change operations don't do that sort of thing and probably don't condone it.


Quote
holding up Audrey Hale as an innocent victim (those 9 year old christian children were basically committing GENOCIDE on he/him by existing and refusing to be queer), and advocating for open murder of their ideological opponents.

Like you, Brad and Baby Shark treat the Jan 6 fascists as heroes and martyrs and lie about their crimes? Pot, meet kettle.

Elfdart, you are living proof that Common Sense isn't.

EDIT: And I just read Pundit's off-topic warning. My bad. Mea Culpa.