Enjoy.

[Zak S]

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?

[Zak S]

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:

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.

[HappyDaze]

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.

[Zak S]

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.

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.)

[HappyDaze]

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.

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?

[HappyDaze]

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.

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.

[Zak S]

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?

[Zak S]

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.

[HappyDaze]

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.

[Zak S]

Already covered.

Already covered what?

Are you trying to say you know the claim that I had a sockpuppet isn't true?

[HappyDaze]

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?

[Zak S]

I already covered that.

I don't know what that means in this context.

Oh well.

[HappyDaze]

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?

[Zak S]

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.

[HappyDaze]

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?