Quote from: Peter D. Adkison on March 04, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
...To clarify, I want to state that Zak S has been banned from Gen Con and that we flat-out don't tolerate harassers or abusers in our community or at our convention. ...

Sincerely,
Peter D. Adkison
Co-owner of Gen Con and Chairperson of the Board

Hilarious.

This is the same guy who openly admitted to sleeping with Female employee's while he ran Wizards of the Coast:

Towards the end of the first article linked:
https://www.salon.com/2001/03/23/wizards/
https://www.salon.com/2001/03/26/wizards_part2/


You can't make this stuff up.

Quote from: S'mon on March 04, 2021, 11:43:20 AMPeter Adkison & Gencon totally separate from WoTC for what, 20 years now?

That is the claim but they certainly keep dancing to WOTCs tune and carrying out their will alot.

Quote from: Torque2100 on March 03, 2021, 09:40:00 AM
Imagine if Pundit created his own Con and then Anita Sarkeesian bullied her way into getting a panel by threatening a lawsuit.

Sell the tickets for her panel and it will be totally worth it 

Quote from: Omega on March 05, 2021, 01:20:53 AM

Quote from: S'mon on March 04, 2021, 11:43:20 AMPeter Adkison & Gencon totally separate from WoTC for what, 20 years now?

That is the claim but they certainly keep dancing to WOTCs tune and carrying out their will alot.

And by "claim" you mean "two totally separate companies one of which doesn't even attend GenCon anymore"? Dude, just admit when you're wrong or misunderstand something.


I don't know shit, but I find a couple of things interesting. Ignoring the venue denial, this gets to the libel laws in the US, doesn't it? Which I know nothing about but are pretty hard to get results from? They stated he was an abuser and/or harasser, none of which has been legally proven? Which, as a leading voice in the community, could have an impact on his ability to do business? Different language used might have put them in a better position. And, I wonder if there's a different standard for some rando saying it and some company/leading publication/organization in your field saying it? US libel laws are pretty liberal.

Then again, dudes got enough money that he can say whatever he wants and suck up the damages portion. Why does he care about the outcome?

Quote from: bryce0lynch on March 05, 2021, 09:40:02 AM
I don't know shit, but I find a couple of things interesting. Ignoring the venue denial, this gets to the libel laws in the US, doesn't it? Which I know nothing about but are pretty hard to get results from? They stated he was an abuser and/or harasser, none of which has been legally proven? Which, as a leading voice in the community, could have an impact on his ability to do business? Different language used might have put them in a better position. And, I wonder if there's a different standard for some rando saying it and some company/leading publication/organization in your field saying it? US libel laws are pretty liberal.

Then again, dudes got enough money that he can say whatever he wants and suck up the damages portion. Why does he care about the outcome?

Sort of. Defamation law, as I recall (and I am NOT a lawyer, this is based on watching a LOT of slapfights), requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did so maliciously, and stated such things as fact, not opinion.

U.S. defamation law is actually pretty strict, compared to, say, the UK. In fact, the UK's defamation and libel laws used to be a selling point for court shopping, to the point where the U.S. passed a law that straight-up blocked enforcement of verdicts from other national jurisdictions unless they passed U.S. libel law requirements (the SPEECH act, I think it was). People were filing in the UK for defamation and trying to get their verdicts enforced here.

The really interesting angle is the pushback against the press, which has enjoyed -- up until recently -- a lot more protection and deference (probably more than it deserves). Hence why I've kept one eye on the Sandmann case.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 05, 2021, 09:51:45 AM
The really interesting angle is the pushback against the press, which has enjoyed -- up until recently -- a lot more protection and deference (probably more than it deserves). Hence why I've kept one eye on the Sandmann case.

One of the problems is the mainstream press seems to think they're a protected class, but that alternative news sources are not. That's bullshit, freedom of the press should apply to all news sources. None of the revolutionary-era pamphleteers the Founding Fathers were familiar with had official press passes, after all.

The weird thing about this is companies used to be so circumspect when it came to talking about people they censured. For instance, if an employee was fired and a potential future employer called to check, the most they'd usually get was "we can verify they were employed here between these dates...". Now, they seem to compelled to say why. And it's not just a neutral "after investigation we found the defendant guilty of the following charges..." style pronouncements, these are all moral judgments. Which is why they're getting in trouble, and the multiple quotes from Adkison are a perfect example.

Quote from: bryce0lynch on March 05, 2021, 09:40:02 AM
And by "claim" you mean "two totally separate companies one of which doesn't even attend GenCon anymore"? Dude, just admit when you're wrong or misunderstand something.

Then for a company that "doesnt attend GenCon anymore" they sure can dictate to that con who to ban and not. Zak is not the first. Though it is debatable if WOTC had an active hand in this Zak issue or not. But would not surprise me at all considering they have done it before.

Quote from: Omega on March 04, 2021, 05:21:57 AM
What we are seeing is people getting fed up with WOTCs incessant stupid and starting to fight back. This is now the 3rd lawsuit against them, or involving them in the last year or so that I can recall.

WTF are you smoking? This topic has nothing to do with WOTC. WOTC doesn't even attend GenCon anymore and hasn't for years. They don't own GenCon, in any way.

Quote from: Omega on March 05, 2021, 04:48:27 PM

Quote from: bryce0lynch on March 05, 2021, 09:40:02 AM
And by "claim" you mean "two totally separate companies one of which doesn't even attend GenCon anymore"? Dude, just admit when you're wrong or misunderstand something.

Then for a company that "doesnt attend GenCon anymore" they sure can dictate to that con who to ban and not. Zak is not the first. Though it is debatable if WOTC had an active hand in this Zak issue or not. But would not surprise me at all considering they have done it before.

WOTC didn't dictate to GenCon anything. They have literally nothing to do with this topic in any way. WOTC switched to a different convention (PAX) ages ago. How the fuck do you not know this?

No one ever let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Quote from: Bunch on March 05, 2021, 05:21:50 PM
No one ever let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Never let the truth get in the way of willful ignorance I guess.

WOTC has gotten GenCon to ban people before. Do you think Zak would have been singled out so loudly, if at all, if WOTC hadn't erased him from the core books and declared him a bad person on their own site?

Cite or shut the fuck up.

Quote from: Omega on March 06, 2021, 03:27:28 AM

Quote from: Bunch on March 05, 2021, 05:21:50 PM
No one ever let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Never let the truth get in the way of willful ignorance I guess.

WOTC has gotten GenCon to ban people before. Do you think Zak would have been singled out so loudly, if at all, if WOTC hadn't erased him from the core books and declared him a bad person on their own site?

You are being an idiot. WOTC and GenCon don't talk to each other anymore and have not for years. WOTC left Gencon years ago for PAX, Winter Fantasy, and even Gamehole and Garycon. Yes, that's right, WOTC will go to small cons and large cons, but they won't go to GenCon. They won't attend GenCon anymore. And you can bet GenCon is pissed at them for that because that was a huge amount of revenue they lost.

Before you continue with your idiocy, ask yourself for a moment WHY YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT? It's not new news. It's rather old news. We're not talking something recent, this has been for many years now.

Ask yourself why you still thought WOTC was influencing a convention which they literally swore off and won't have anything to do with?

Whatever weird vendetta you have with WOTC, justified or not, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not linked to WOTC on this one. There is no conspiracy there. GenCon didn't base any decision on what WOTC thinks - I suspect they hate WOTC in fact. They surely are not communicating with each other anymore these days.

Have you considered the possibility two different and unrelated companies can be pissed at Zak S. simultaneously and genuinely unrelated to each other? Or does it HAVE to be some conspiracy and one doing the bidding of the other for...reasons?

Quote from: Mistwell on March 06, 2021, 11:37:26 AM

fap fap fap

Nice to see that some things never change.....Mistwell White Knighting for WotC is a fixed star in the TheRPGSite night sky.....

I think I can safely say that if all parties involved spontaneously combusted, I would break out the marshmallows, and that little of value - if anything - would be lost.