Enjoy.

[Mistwell]

Edit - This conversation was not worth having

[I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[deadDMwalking]

I'm reminded of this comic:

Penny Arcade - The Adventures of Twisp & 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. 

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?   

[Mistwell]

You guys are right.

[GeekyBugle]

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.

[deadDMwalking]

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! 

[HappyDaze]

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

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.

[Zak S]

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Zak S]

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.

[Zak S]

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 S]

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.

[I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE]

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.

[Zak S]

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.

[I HATE THE DEMIURGE I HATE THE DEMIURGE]

Well, what would one expect from a hylic?

[deadDMwalking]

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.