Enjoy.

[Rob Necronomicon]

A) I know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, and have given my thoughts on it - Basically a perception that you're not willing to engage with them, even when they try to be genuine all this has led to mudflining on all sides.

Whether it's a "perception" or not, it's objectively false.

Everyone who is in conflict with me in this thread right now was the aggressor and broke good faith discussion pretty much immediately--often to the point of simply opening a conversation with misinformation or a personal attack (you can go back and check that). This thread began with me posting in earnest and them showing up to troll. Which, in every case I'm aware of, is how they've always been. Ive never trolled anyone on the internet ever.

It's not like I showed up while they were talking about something specifically to lie about them.

In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.

So any perception that I'm not genuine is objectively false. They aren't being genuine because they chose not to be, I am being genuine because I am morally obligated to be and I believe in moral obligations.

B) This is basically a thread about you and what's going on.

Yes and what's going on is a hatemob of which they are part. So it's about them, too.

C) And this is the big one for me, I'm also very curious as to why you seem to be playing into the hands of your enemies.

They want the support of trolls. They get that by trolling.

Only bad people want that.

I don't want that. I have a different goal.

Their goal is served best if they're allowed uncontested speech, and you're not contesting it, so someone else has to.

Plus no matter how much fodder I give them to troll about, nothing they say could possibly sway a rational person because they can't have rational conversations--(since that requires answering questions.)

And as I intimated it's not a route I would go if I was in your shoes. So on that one, we will have to agree to disagree.

Well the route of accommodating trolls has objctively not worked at all and made the problems worse.

So I can't imagine why you'd keep accommodating them, other than fear for your personal safety, status, etc.

This is the problem with trying to communicate with people through text. It's often hard to make certain points understood and the motives behind them.

I don't want to tread on old ground, but I feel I have to clear this up at least: In 'no way' am I suggesting you should 'accommodate' the trolls. I said that before...
It's about losing the 'perception', that a number of people have, (and it goes beyond this forum, FB, etc.) that don't think you're a nice person online. We have differing opinions on its effectiveness.

Sure you can bring the haters into it if you want. But I think some have tried to ask you stuff (genuinely, if after the fact) but you've set up that rigid bullet point thingey. And I've stated why I don't think it's valid.

At the end of the day, and as I've said this to tube sock. I think you're your own worst enemy. I'm not having a dig at you here... That's just my perception (you obviously don't view it that way).

[Zak S]

I don't want to tread on old ground, but I feel I have to clear this up at least: In 'no way' am I suggesting you should 'accommodate' the trolls.

Failing to call them out when they post in bad faith or post misinformation is accommodating them.

You don't call them out, yet still post.

You've repeatedly said you choose to not and do a different thing (including pal around with Venger Satanis).

So: that's accommodating them.

But I think some have tried to ask you stuff (genuinely, if after the fact) but you've set up that rigid bullet point thingey. And I've stated why I don't think it's valid.

And you were incorrect to say that and I'm going to reiterate why:

1) If someone who has already trolled and acted in bad faith asks for evidence and I do the work to provide it and then they do what trolls do and fail to acknowledge that their request was asked and answered and they were wrong, i just did work for nothing. This asymmetric situation would truly just be allowing them to take advantage of me being honest.

2) Simply going "Ok if I play fair will you" ? and they say no is sufficient to prove to any rational reader they can't be trusted. I don't need to go beyond that. At that point anyone worth talking to goes "Ok, the people Zak's talking to are acting like sociopaths" and it's done.

3) the perception of those pretty much normal every day rules as "rigid" is super weird since people are expected to be responsible for what they say irl all the time. It's not weird at the dinner table to ask a question and then everybody knows you're being squirmy if you don't answer.

4) "Because style" is not a great argument in a moral conflict with actual stakes.

So if you want to keep claiming this is bad, you should say why--again, not why I won't convince trolls (we all know that) but why it's bad to do the right thing.

[deadDMwalking]

Zak,

You're doing that thing again where you take a portion of a post and pretend you responded to the whole thing.  In the 'tongue post, I said 'we know that if we ask nicely Zak will give us that bonus any other of number of a dozen digferent ways'.  And you called me crazy before admitting that, yeah, you can get that bonus a 'bazillion ways'.  You know, the thing that I said was consistent with your stated position and exactly what you admitted to two days later.  Of course, by that definition you lied and failed to apologize first. 

As for money, my point was that I do alright.  As for children, my point is that as far as serial activity, I do alright.  As far as playing D&D, my point is that I get to engage in my hobbies in ways that are fun for me.  I'm not incapable of understanding the aspersions you cast obliquely implying that I'm only here because I'm jealous of how wonderful your life is.  My point (which seems to have enraged you to cause you to post multiple times in a row) is that my reason to be here is the one you claim - to make sure the truth is told - specifically that you are an asshole and everyone deserves to know the truth.

As for signed legal documents limiting the manner in which I can speak, yes, I do decline.  This forum and the content of my posts exactly serves my purposes.  If you want ANOTHER forum for conversation that meets your preference, I have expressed a willingness to appear in court to defend myself against allegations of defaming your character.  Based on your many comments to the effect, I can only presume that you having NOT PURSUED LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ME is that you admit that my allegations are true (you are an asshole) and you accept that this thread provides substantial proof to that effect.  But keep trying to gaslight the audience.  As I've said multiple times, one of the most significant differences between us is that I believe in the audience's ability to come to their own conclusion. 

Why are you afraid to let them read the 'allegations' and your claimed 'rebuttals' and reach a conclusion?  You do realize that most of your posts are you spamming the same response over and over?  Who do you think will be swayed by hearing the same exact response for the thirtieth time?

[Zak S]

I have expressed a willingness to appear in court to defend myself against allegations of defaming your character. 

You said you'd testify that you thought I was an asshole.

But will you testify to all the other assertions you've made about me on here?

[Zak S]

You're doing that thing again where you take a portion of a post and pretend you responded to the whole thing.  In the 'tongue post, I said 'we know that if we ask nicely Zak will give us that bonus any other of number of a dozen digferent ways'.  And you called me crazy before admitting that, yeah, you can get that bonus a 'bazillion ways'.  You know, the thing that I said was consistent with your stated position and exactly what you admitted to two days later.  Of course, by that definition you lied and failed to apologize first. 

"A bazillion ways" does not necessarily include your tongue-shoving fantasy.

So: no.

But more importantly, simple yes or no:

Is that post the first time you're aware of us ever interacting?

[DocJones]

In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.

I thought you were just an asshole.
I was wrong.
You're an idiot too.

[Zak S]

In fact, at any moment I'd be perfectly happy to sign an enforceable legal contract to have a good faith conversation--and they won't make that offer.

I thought you were just an asshole.
I was wrong.
You're an idiot too.

You're going to have to argue that out with the other troll above who insisted I'm not an idiot.

I don't know which one of you to believe.

[Rob Necronomicon]

I don't want to tread on old ground, but I feel I have to clear this up at least: In 'no way' am I suggesting you should 'accommodate' the trolls.

Failing to call them out when they post in bad faith or post misinformation is accommodating them.

You don't call them out, yet still post.

You've repeatedly said you choose to not and do a different thing (including pal around with Venger Satanis).

So: that's accommodating them.

This is quite interesting... You seem to be tangling up what I've been saying, is this deliberate? Hmm... I'll let the lurkers decide.

So now you're putting the onus on me to call out these guys? No can do... (or will do!). For one I don't have a lot of specifics on which to do so. I have no idea what you and DMW are talking about. I'm scanning that at best...

Also, I've seen those chaps on a number of different threads and I don't have anything against them. I've also seen them try to be 'honest' with you too and you've pretty much handwaved them away.

That's tru... I certainly wouldn't handle things the way you do. But that has very little to do with 'trolls' I'm talking about an overall perception. I feel I've been very clear on that point. But I'll leave that to the lurkers to decide...

I'm not sure what Venger has to do with this all of a sudden. But I'll bite...  I certainly can't call Venger a friend, but I've chatted to him on YT and on the forums. Besides his politics, he seems like a good guy. That is to say, I'd happily have a pint with him if he was in the neighborhood. If you and him have some kind of a beef that has nothing to do with me (if that's what you're implying, again I can't be sure).

Talking with you is very odd... One moment things seem to be moving along, then out of nowhere - it goes all Salvadore Dali.

I'm genuinely confused...

[Zak S]

I've also seen them try to be 'honest' with you too and you've pretty much handwaved them away.

I didn't "handwave" them--I gave a very specific reason:

-They didn't begin the conversation in a good faith way or apologize for that
-They didn't agree to a mutual agreement to have a good faith conversation

...did you miss that part?

I'm not sure what Venger has to do with this all of a sudden.

Simple: Venger's a troll. Venger says things he won't stand behind--publicly.

So palling around with him is bad. Unless the ultimate goal there is to get him into therapy.

Are you now unconfused?

[Rob Necronomicon]

I've also seen them try to be 'honest' with you too and you've pretty much handwaved them away.

I didn't "handwave" them--I gave a very specific reason:

-They didn't begin the conversation in a good faith way or apologize for that
-They didn't agree to a mutual agreement to have a good faith conversation

...did you miss that part?

I'm not sure what Venger has to do with this all of a sudden.

Simple: Venger's a troll. Venger says things he won't stand behind--publicly.

So palling around with him is bad. Unless the ultimate goal there is to get him into therapy.

Are you now unconfused?

No, I didn't as it happens... Your uber 'rigid structure' (the bullet point thingey) and the way you apply it seem exceedingly unreasonable (as for reasons already given). Taking things in such a literal manner is unworkable from my perspective.

Depends on what you mean by Venger being a troll. So he released a few modules that pissed off Drivthru? What's the big deal? Fuck 'em...

I don't know anything about him not 'standing behind stuff'. But that's hearsay...

And I'd really rather not bring Venger into this.
.

[Rob Necronomicon]

Are you now unconfused?

I am.

[Zak S]

No, I didn't as it happens... Your uber 'rigid structure' (the bullet point thingey) and the way you apply it seem exceedingly unreasonable (as for reasons already given). Taking things in such a literal manner is unworkable from my perspective.

I'll repeat for the third time and I'dask you to actually address the statement made to you:
People manage to follow this. "ultra rigid" (not rigid) stucture all the time in most real life social situations.

Other than the fact that it is unpopular on some internet forums why do you think it;s bad?

Depends on what you mean by Venger being a troll.

This has nothing to do with his releases.

Venger posted negative statements on the internet about other people that he won't back up or engage about.

That makes him a troll.

If you don't believe that he did that, you may ask for examples.

[Rob Necronomicon]

No, I didn't as it happens... Your uber 'rigid structure' (the bullet point thingey) and the way you apply it seem exceedingly unreasonable (as for reasons already given). Taking things in such a literal manner is unworkable from my perspective.

I'll repeat for the third time and I'dask you to actually address the statement made to you:
People manage to follow this. "ultra rigid" (not rigid) stucture all the time in most real life social situations.

Other than the fact that it is unpopular on some internet forums why do you think it;s bad?

Depends on what you mean by Venger being a troll.

This has nothing to do with his releases.

Venger posted negative statements on the internet about other people that he won't back up or engage about.

That makes him a troll.

If you don't believe that he did that, you may ask for examples.

The way you wish to engage with people re. the rigid structure. I've addressed that several times and why I think it is unworkable. But you don't agree...
So not really much point in reiterating it (refer back to my earlier posts if you wish to see my thoughts on it again).

As I stated earlier... I don't know what these incidents are re. Venger and I don't really wish to bring him into the conversation. I don't think it serves a purpose.

[Zak S]

\

The way you wish to engage with people re. the rigid structure. I've addressed that several times and why I think it is unworkable. But you don't agree...
So not really much point in reiterating it (refer back to my earlier posts if you wish to see my thoughts on it again).

You keep saying over and over that it's not workable/good/the way you want to do things but you're not saying why (other than: "it's not popular")

Could you please stop repeating that and instead, in detail say why you think it's a bad way to interact with people--especially considering the fact I've laid out already:

--that other people in social situations manage to do it all the time?

--and doing things your way has lead to terrible outcomes for the RPG community

As I stated earlier... I don't know what these incidents are re. Venger and I don't really wish to bring him into the conversation. I don't think it serves a purpose.

It serves a very clear purpose:

You are proposing a different way of dealing with trolls than I do.

And one of the outcomes of that different way is: being friendly and enabling a harmful troll named Venger Satanis.

So it's super-relevant to the conversation, since the conversation is about whether its good to do things your way or mine or some other way.

[Rob Necronomicon]

\

The way you wish to engage with people re. the rigid structure. I've addressed that several times and why I think it is unworkable. But you don't agree...
So not really much point in reiterating it (refer back to my earlier posts if you wish to see my thoughts on it again).

You keep saying over and over that it's not workable/good/the way you want to do things but you're not saying why (other than: "it's not popular")

Could you please stop repeating that and instead, in detail say why you think it's a bad way to interact with people--especially considering the fact I've laid out already:

--that other people in social situations manage to do it all the time?

--and doing things your way has lead to terrible outcomes for the RPG community

As I stated earlier... I don't know what these incidents are re. Venger and I don't really wish to bring him into the conversation. I don't think it serves a purpose.

It serves a very clear purpose:

You are proposing a different way of dealing with trolls than I do.

And one of the outcomes of that different way is: being friendly and enabling a harmful troll named Venger Satanis.

So it's super-relevant to the conversation, since the conversation is about whether its good to do things your way or mine or some other way.

Hmm... You've not grasped the way I do things obviously, and I certainly will stop 'repeating' myself. All the answers are in the posts I've made and I've specifically broken them down - Tho you may disagree.

As I said... Venger has been decent to me and I'm unaware of your accusations. And I don't think airing your grievance with Venger is very productive.