Also, apparently (according to Hill, haven't checked), Clio has deleted her website.

Hill also posted this (this is Clio writing to Hill):

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 30, 2024, 05:54:56 PM
On a side note, its clear that there's something serious going on with Clio's professional activities, in that she left Columbia, then went to UNReno, but lasted only around a year there, and now seems to be living with her parents in Oregon and trying to get low-level psychotherapist work there while apparently doing academic work nowhere. So there could be other reasons, but looking at it on paper, it has all the look of a massive downward spiral, like the kind of things caused by stuff like academic scandals, or drug problems or having become involved in some fucked up relationship.

Depression is an academic job hazard (I should know) and she says she's an abuse survivor. I think she's probably just a regular academic depression sufferer, not academic scandals/drugs/recent bad relationship.  And that depression probably prompted both the publication and the retraction. Remember she is far left, and clearly has trouble with the idea fellow far leftists are bad people, to the extent of finding it traumatic. She idealises Zak in the article, that might (slightly ironically) be from BPD, which often goes with depression.

Remind me again why I care about any of these people?

Guy won his defamation lawsuit. Somebody had to suck it up and publicly apologize. It's stickied. Cool.

Is it just me, or does this all sound like the TTRPG version of that guy who's crazy redneck girlfriend flips out and goes nuts and puts a brick through the windshield of his car?

Quote from: S'mon on January 30, 2024, 06:59:01 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 30, 2024, 05:54:56 PM
On a side note, its clear that there's something serious going on with Clio's professional activities, in that she left Columbia, then went to UNReno, but lasted only around a year there, and now seems to be living with her parents in Oregon and trying to get low-level psychotherapist work there while apparently doing academic work nowhere. So there could be other reasons, but looking at it on paper, it has all the look of a massive downward spiral, like the kind of things caused by stuff like academic scandals, or drug problems or having become involved in some fucked up relationship.

Depression is an academic job hazard (I should know) and she says she's an abuse survivor. I think she's probably just a regular academic depression sufferer, not academic scandals/drugs/recent bad relationship.  And that depression probably prompted both the publication and the retraction. Remember she is far left, and clearly has trouble with the idea fellow far leftists are bad people, to the extent of finding it traumatic. She idealises Zak in the article, that might (slightly ironically) be from BPD, which often goes with depression.

A lot to unpack there. First off, of course she could be having personal trauma that has essentially derailed her career. But based on the assumption that she authored this article, it's clear that she was never actually professional and capable in any career. I think she's probably too unstable and undisciplined to be able to get on a track. 

As far as being traumatized by the idea of leftists being mean people we can't know if that's the real her or part of the standard Zak-themed-article format. We've seen them before:
-credited to have been written by a woman
-impeccable leftist credentials (in terms of both diversity quota and activism) to make it impossible to dismiss as a "right wing rant" (ie. "I was a totally normal ordinary ultra-left progressive democratic socialist queer lgbt sex-positive polyamorous activist like everyone else, so when I say Zak is totally innocent you can't question me")
-disparaging of the right
-pretense to being highly skeptical of certain accusations being made against woke leftists only to be shocked to find they are true
-pretense to being initially skeptical of Zak's innocence only to realize that all accusations against him are a pack of lies.
-detailed litany of all the woes of Zak and all his great qualities and how certain mentally ill women have slandered him while toxic progressives who hate him got him cancelled.
-The section on Zak goes way too long, to the point that no normal human could possibly interested in that much detail about Zak Smith except Zak Smith himself.
-Inevitably, the obsession with Zak and his particular case and his particular complaints and his particular obsessions ends up making the article much weaker at everything it intended, not only at critiquing the toxic cancel-culture elements of the hobby, but also ironically at making people more sympathetic to Zak.

Quote from: Corolinth on January 30, 2024, 09:24:26 PM
Remind me again why I care about any of these people?

Guy won his defamation lawsuit. Somebody had to suck it up and publicly apologize. It's stickied. Cool.

Is it just me, or does this all sound like the TTRPG version of that guy who's crazy redneck girlfriend flips out and goes nuts and puts a brick through the windshield of his car?

Very much so, except in this case it's "crazy progressive bisexual pornhub star girlfriend"

Quote from: Corolinth on January 30, 2024, 09:24:26 PM
Remind me again why I care about any of these people?

Guy won his defamation lawsuit. Somebody had to suck it up and publicly apologize. It's stickied. Cool.

Is it just me, or does this all sound like the TTRPG version of that guy who's crazy redneck girlfriend flips out and goes nuts and puts a brick through the windshield of his car?

LOL you and me both.

Perhaps the good doctor's fall from the ivory tower was due to a terrible madness acquired from 4 years of speaking with these despicable assholes.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 30, 2024, 09:37:42 PM-The section on Zak goes way too long, to the point that no normal human could possibly interested in that much detail about Zak Smith except Zak Smith himself.

By any chance, was Zak's porno speciality fellating himself?

Hill is merely making a classic and hominem argument.

And usually people who argument like that try to avoid talking about content.
Considering that none of the points being raised against Weissman negate the article.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 30, 2024, 05:54:56 PM
Because what hasn't changed is that it is VERY CLEAR, unquestionably so, that the real purpose of this article (as it is EIGHTY PERCENT of its content) was not primarily about condemning these woke cunts or to expose the toxic culture they created, but rather to act as Pro-Zak Propaganda to try yet again to reintegrate him into the hobby he's now marginalized from.
And don't get me wrong, there's good arguments for the Anathema declaration against being bullshit and hugely unjust, and that therefore the people who banned him forever or even mention or his name or products should be prompted to reverse course. But I HATE when someone presents me an INFOMERCIAL and tries to tell me its a News Report. This was a Zak S Infomercial, the Zak Smith Story Lifetime Special, masquerading as an objective academic study. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence that the people behind this thought anyone would fall for this, especially with how badly it was done.

Having just now read the whole thing and listened to the audio quotes, I agree that it comes across as very much over-the-top cheerleading for Zak. This part especially was using her psych credentials to endorse him, which seemed odd.

QuoteSmith allowed me to do a psych eval on him without hesitation:

As a psychotherapist I can tell you he exhibits no symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder or any of the other diagnoses du jour Internet strangers like to pin on him, though he does show minor signs of the depression and anxiety that you would expect from someone who has almost nothing because he was betrayed by the person he loved most and dozens of people he had tried to help.

That is using her credentials to support him, but I doubt a single eval is sufficient to diagnose any personality disorder (or rule out any diagnosis). Also, I find this part odd:

QuoteThe start of their argument was predictable and is all well-recorded— Hill's wife said something that was not true and Zak, very politely and patiently at first, asked her to stop.

Having interacted with Zak online, I find the "politely and patiently" to be implausible.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 30, 2024, 09:37:42 PM
A lot to unpack there. First off, of course she could be having personal trauma that has essentially derailed her career. But based on the assumption that she authored this article, it's clear that she was never actually professional and capable in any career. I think she's probably too unstable and undisciplined to be able to get on a track. 

As far as being traumatized by the idea of leftists being mean people we can't know if that's the real her or part of the standard Zak-themed-article format. We've seen them before:
-credited to have been written by a woman
-impeccable leftist credentials (in terms of both diversity quota and activism) to make it impossible to dismiss as a "right wing rant" (ie. "I was a totally normal ordinary ultra-left progressive democratic socialist queer lgbt sex-positive polyamorous activist like everyone else, so when I say Zak is totally innocent you can't question me")
-disparaging of the right
-pretense to being highly skeptical of certain accusations being made against woke leftists only to be shocked to find they are true
-pretense to being initially skeptical of Zak's innocence only to realize that all accusations against him are a pack of lies.
-detailed litany of all the woes of Zak and all his great qualities and how certain mentally ill women have slandered him while toxic progressives who hate him got him cancelled.
-The section on Zak goes way too long, to the point that no normal human could possibly interested in that much detail about Zak Smith except Zak Smith himself.
-Inevitably, the obsession with Zak and his particular case and his particular complaints and his particular obsessions ends up making the article much weaker at everything it intended, not only at critiquing the toxic cancel-culture elements of the hobby, but also ironically at making people more sympathetic to Zak.

I basically agree with you about the article, but I'm pretty sure it was the real person who did the interviews - over four years - and who wrote it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 30, 2024, 10:04:33 PM
Perhaps the good doctor's fall from the ivory tower was due to a terrible madness acquired from 4 years of speaking with these despicable assholes.

Those repeated 1d6 to 1d10 SAN losses definitely add up.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 30, 2024, 10:04:33 PM
Perhaps the good doctor's fall from the ivory tower was due to a terrible madness acquired from 4 years of speaking with these despicable assholes.

Reading it I got the impression from page one the writer was a serious-minded liberal with all the usual assumptions, then as it goes on they are surprised and depressed again and again and again to find the 'good guys' are among the most vile humans she has ever encountered. Then over too much wine decided to publish an incomplete manuscript that they regretted publishing the next day. Your quip may be totally accurate. Their author's worldview probably collapsed around them.

Quote from: Coffeecup on January 30, 2024, 11:25:44 PM
Hill is merely making a classic and hominem argument.

And usually people who argument like that try to avoid talking about content.
Considering that none of the points being raised against Weissman negate the article.

You aren't wrong, but the article making it all about Zak invited that particular weakness (of making it all about Zak) in.

So perhaps I'll need to eat crow on CBW not being the author. I am still not entirely sold, but alternative explanations for the crazy do now come to mind.

When I searched CBW up, I also noticed her moving around a lot. Study in Alabama, New York, job in Nevada, currently in Oregon with no immediately obvious employment. Three graduate degrees. This is the bio of someone who has poor self-discipline and is up to her eyeballs in debt, but I also want to point out that while most social workers are generously described as vapid parasites, the exceptions to that rule can make vicious enemies. It isn't beyond the pale for her to be fleeing death threats. My supposition is that she researched Zak S hoping to get a monetizable following by "cracking the case" of an "abuser"...and proceeded to fall in love with the subject.

This puts CBW in an awkward position because defending Zak S is basically all or nothing, even if the truth isn't so clear. I think that the evidence Zak S did something wrong is not particularly solid and the evidence the internet mob which got him blacklisted everywhere did wrong things is plain to see. I think that Zak S stuck his dick in crazy, and that he tactically misplayed the controversy. The original blacklists were to abuse Zak, but after his lawsuits, it is now a self-defense to avoid litigation. Even if we could perfectly exonerate Zak S (which we probably can't) he has burned down his bridges back into the industry. That said, while dumb these are not wrong. I am not actually familiar with any wrongdoing I can verify, and innocent until proven guilty.

So you wind up with CBW having the conflicting desire to protect Zak S and her own poor self discipline to actually stay the course and fight against what is sure to be an abusive mob of Zak-haters. Confused desires lead to confused, rambly article, which the author herself pulled down because she doesn't have the mental health to take the abuse these people would surely send her way given the chance. I would say this resembles Harley Quinn and Joker except that I don't actually see any evidence CBW ever directly interacted with Zak S. The confused Gordian knot of emotion which led to this is entirely contained in CBW and self-detonated on its own accord.

This unfortunately reinforces my opinion that the article is an unreliable source.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 30, 2024, 09:37:42 PM
A lot to unpack there. First off, of course she could be having personal trauma that has essentially derailed her career. But based on the assumption that she authored this article, it's clear that she was never actually professional and capable in any career. I think she's probably too unstable and undisciplined to be able to get on a track. 

As far as being traumatized by the idea of leftists being mean people we can't know if that's the real her or part of the standard Zak-themed-article format. We've seen them before:
-credited to have been written by a woman
-impeccable leftist credentials (in terms of both diversity quota and activism) to make it impossible to dismiss as a "right wing rant" (ie. "I was a totally normal ordinary ultra-left progressive democratic socialist queer lgbt sex-positive polyamorous activist like everyone else, so when I say Zak is totally innocent you can't question me")
-disparaging of the right
-pretense to being highly skeptical of certain accusations being made against woke leftists only to be shocked to find they are true
-pretense to being initially skeptical of Zak's innocence only to realize that all accusations against him are a pack of lies.
-detailed litany of all the woes of Zak and all his great qualities and how certain mentally ill women have slandered him while toxic progressives who hate him got him cancelled.
-The section on Zak goes way too long, to the point that no normal human could possibly interested in that much detail about Zak Smith except Zak Smith himself.
-Inevitably, the obsession with Zak and his particular case and his particular complaints and his particular obsessions ends up making the article much weaker at everything it intended, not only at critiquing the toxic cancel-culture elements of the hobby, but also ironically at making people more sympathetic to Zak.

Careful, Pundit, you could get cancelled all over again for what this implies. 

In the past decade and a half, there's been such a rush to "diversify" professional disciplines that proper screening for candidates to be up to par just hasn't been done.  This has been happening in all the fields; science, engineering, medicine, etc. 

A prime example of the failure of this effort is the FIU bridge collapse in 2018.  https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/5-years-later-fiu-bridge-collapse-remembered/2993692/  What this article won't tell you is that this was being done by a staff of all female engineers that had not been educated in the discipline of rigor.  It had been waived for them as an unnecessary impediment to women in a male dominated field.   tools developed in response to lessons learned in blood are being swept away as a mere inconvenience and gatekeeping so under-qualified individuals can reap the rewards of high status jobs and positions.

The coming genocide will born of ineptitude rather than malice. 

Let me be clear to any reader; I believe in real equal opportunity.  Anyone that meets the strict requirements and is willing to take the responsibility seriously should have these kinds of jobs.