Enjoy.

[deadDMwalking]

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.

[Zak S]

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.

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.

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:

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)

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.

[Tubesock Army]

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.

[Zak S]

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:

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)

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.

[Rob Necronomicon]

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.....

[Tubesock Army]

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:

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)

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.

[Tubesock Army]

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

[Rob Necronomicon]

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.

[Zak S]

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:

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)

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.

[Tubesock Army]

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.

[deadDMwalking]

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. 

[Zak S]

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:

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)

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.

[Zak S]

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.

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:

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)

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.

[deadDMwalking]

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. 

[Zak S]

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:

...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.