Enjoy.

[Zak S]

Zak, after you stated your income level, I started wondering why you aren't trying to turn your doggedness towards actually making money by doing some kind of work. Money might not buy you happiness, but poverty is generally worse.

Since you were offered an opportunity to have a good faith discussion multiple times and explicitly refused there would be no point in going in to a conversation about all the inaccurate assumptions you made in that comment.

If you would like to reverse your previous decision and engage in a good faith discussion, say that.

I personally will make any guarantee to do that up to and including signing a contract.

[Zak S]

What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harasment or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family.

The misinformation that people have spread here on this specific subject has driven more than one person close to suicide and has screwed their income to the point where it's hard to feed their family.

So:

The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

[Rob Necronomicon]

The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

And what can you deduce that my response would be to that?

[Zak S]

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.

If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.

So, if I were to show you that Venger had done that, would you say Venger is doing something bad?

I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently).

No you just keep recommending that I don't do it ,which is confusing since you just agreed that what they do is bad.

But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,

I haven't said anything about whether you are happy or not.

Again with the snarks but..

Which of these things is supposed to be snarky?

[Zak S]

The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

And what can you deduce that my response would be to that?

I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

[Rob Necronomicon]

I am concerned about negative false public statements about living people that other people might believe and act on.

If you put it like that. I don't see how anyone (with a consioence) could say that it's okay to do it. Because you could actually cause 'harm'.

So, if I were to show you that Venger had done that, would you say Venger is doing something bad?

I think the crux of the matter here is you're trying to paint me as a bad guy for not calling out trolls (even stuff that I have no idea about, apparently).

No you just keep recommending that I don't do it ,which is confusing since you just agreed that what they do is bad.

But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,

I haven't said anything about whether you are happy or not.

Again with the snarks but..

Which of these things is supposed to be snarky?

Well, all of it... Especially the points about me being 'happy', continually using Venger, and attempts to get that gotcha' binary funneling. There are also previous examples of having subtle digs at me too. But I'm okay with that... Because I can see why you might consider me to be a possible troll. AKA - you probably consider everyone (or 99%) on this thread a 'hostile.' But as I said, I can't trust you to be fair with me despite me trying to chat with you. 

So your actions on this thread, towards me (and some others when they have tried to be honest even after the fact) leave me now unable to judge whether you're continually being sarcastic or not. That is my perception of the situation. As I said, I've tried to be open and honest with you but I don't think it's being reciprocated. Your perception of the conversation may be different, that's fine too.

So, best of luck, man.

[Rob Necronomicon]

The threshold you're describing for the misinformation being spread here has been crossed.

And what can you deduce that my response would be to that?

I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

Riiiight... More sarcasm?
I've answered this on more than one occasion -  So I'll just copy and paste:

"To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harassment, or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family."

[Zak S]

Well, all of it... Especially the points about me being 'happy'

You literally made a false assertion about me not knowing you're happy:

you don't seem to realize is that I'm quite happy,

Pointing out I didn't do that isn't "snark".

Its a rational discussion of a claim you made.

There are also previous examples of having subtle digs at me too.

Literally what?

leave me now unable to judge whether you're continually being sarcastic or not.

The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

[Zak S]

I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

Riiiight... More sarcasm?

How is that sarcasm.

That is a 100% direct, specific earnest answer.

I've answered this on more than one occasion -  So I'll just copy and paste:

"To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harassment, or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family."

So I'm not following:

1. People on this thread have, objectively, spread misinformation including Venger.

2. This misinformation has resulted in people being pushed to exactly the threshold you're describing as morally meaningful (suicide, difficulty feeding their family)

3. So: the logical conclusion that I would see is that you'd decry the other folks in this thread spreading that kind of misinformation.

I dont' know--given those 3 things, why you aren't doing that.

It may be that you disagree with one of these premises, if so: I don't know what that is and it would be helpful if you'd tell me.

[Rob Necronomicon]

The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.

[Rob Necronomicon]

I have no idea and would not ask if I knew the answer.

Riiiight... More sarcasm?

How is that sarcasm.

That is a 100% direct, specific earnest answer.

I've answered this on more than one occasion -  So I'll just copy and paste:

"To say what I've said before about trolling because you seem to be inferring something by my inaction (to all the trolls).
What I'm talking about here, is if someone is 'doing real harm' then that is highly unethical and amoral (again, I think I've been very clear on this). AKA - Like several young kids who've committed suicide because of 'severe' cyberbullying, online harassment, or threats over the last few years. Or screwing with someone's income to prevent them from feeding their family."

So I'm not following:

1. People on this thread have, objectively, spread misinformation including Venger.

2. This misinformation has resulted in people being pushed to exactly the threshold you're describing as morally meaningful (suicide, difficulty feeding their family)

3. So: the logical conclusion that I would see is that you'd decry the other folks in this thread spreading that kind of misinformation.

I dont' know--given those 3 things, why you aren't doing that.

It may be that you disagree with one of these premises, if so: I don't know what that is and it would be helpful if you'd tell me.

A) How is it sarcasm you ask? Oky, but have I not already explained (twice now) that I can't tell if you taking the piss or not. You may disagree but I feel I'm being very clear here yet again.

B) So I've addressed this on numerous occasions. However, a couple of things now have come to light (from your latest post) and I feel it's important to address them.

First off I've not read all 57 pages - So I've only seen the later stuff. And some of it I still can't quite get my head around (Mike said this.. Mike didn't say that)
I've only come in at... Actually, I can't remember when I first joined the thread. Point is, I've not seen all the accusations.

I certainly have stated my support for you, in regards to you deserving a day in court, and against some very damaging allegations. I've also publically slated Drivethru for taking your income away (or part of it at least). That is grossly unfair in my estimation to do that based on 'allegations'. Gen Con can fuck off as well.

Other allegations that have been posted about you on that website (or whatever) I cannot 'prove or disprove'. Because it's all 'he said.. she said'. But it suffice to say, I don't accept anecdotal evidence unless it's absolutely overwhelming (Weinstein, etc.). Facts only when it comes to the law, science, medicine, etc...

Again, without having seen specifics that have been posted on this thread I can't counter it. Because I just haven't seen them (57 pages!!).

But what you seem to want to know is if I'd call someone out, if I saw some particular very nasty piece of evidence that really 'hurt' you, had you near to suicide, and affected your income? I absolutely fucking would. Why? Because that's going into some serious shit right there (as I've stated previously that's gone waaaay over a bit of trolling).

So yes, I would call someone out if I thought they were putting you into (or anyone) that type of space. It's the humanitarian thing to do...
But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending ad-hominem attacks or a bit of mudslinging. It's a particular style of the forum and we all need to have a bit of skin armor too.

So while I'll always support you (under those specific and very dangerous conditions).

I'd also stand by what I said earlier (and this is IMO):

A) I think you are your own worst enemy.
B) You're a hard man to like given the way you, snark and talk down to people (and you do it quite a lot).

C) I can't tell whether you're just trying to 'make me look like a fool' or not - because of the jibes, chicanery, enforced bullet point criteria, and false dichotomies - This is my personal perception. I'm not stating 'verifiable fact' here, because I can't one way or the other. I don't know what's in your mind. I'm only going on what and how you've posted here to me.

Thus I can't really have a proper conversation with you...

Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.

[Zak S]

The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.

A good faith conversation is one where by definition both parties assume the other person means what they say unless they can prove otherwise. You don't judge based on innuendo, guesses, vibes, or second-hand claims or even on "the balance of evidence"--you judge based only on hard proof. A good faith discussion means you assume the person means what they say unless you can prove they don't.

That's one of the things "Good faith conversation" means. Literally.

If you can't do that, you can't have a good faith conversation.

As for the rest:

But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending...

They have gone way beyond mere namecalling. They have accused me of specific things I objectively provably didn't do, including lying and not following my own suggestions as to what others should do.

These specific accusations have almost lead (and might actually lead) to suicide and have lead to massive being-unable-to-feed-family situations for multiple people.

Can you address that issue: that the false claims made here go way beyond mere namecaling?

Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.

See above for how you didn't. Please address them if you want to have a good faith discussion.

[HappyDaze]

Zak, after you stated your income level, I started wondering why you aren't trying to turn your doggedness towards actually making money by doing some kind of work. Money might not buy you happiness, but poverty is generally worse.

Since you were offered an opportunity to have a good faith discussion multiple times and explicitly refused there would be no point in going in to a conversation about all the inaccurate assumptions you made in that comment.

If you would like to reverse your previous decision and engage in a good faith discussion, say that.

I personally will make any guarantee to do that up to and including signing a contract.

You still haven't owned up and apologized for the lies you've made about me, so...

[HappyDaze]

The only good faith option is to assume good faith until you can prove bad faith.

No, Zak.

I'm just making hypotheses from some of the things you've said. That is my current perception of the matter... But YMMV.

A good faith conversation is one where by definition both parties assume the other person means what they say unless they can prove otherwise. You don't judge based on innuendo, guesses, vibes, or second-hand claims or even on "the balance of evidence"--you judge based only on hard proof. A good faith discussion means you assume the person means what they say unless you can prove they don't.

That's one of the things "Good faith conversation" means. Literally.

If you can't do that, you can't have a good faith conversation.

As for the rest:

But if someone says 'Zak's a poohead' I'm not going to waste my time defending...

They have gone way beyond mere namecalling. They have accused me of specific things I objectively provably didn't do, including lying and not following my own suggestions as to what others should do.

These specific accusations have almost lead (and might actually lead) to suicide and have lead to massive being-unable-to-feed-family situations for multiple people.

Can you address that issue: that the false claims made here go way beyond mere namecaling?

Hopefully, I've addressed the most important aspects.

See above for how you didn't. Please address them if you want to have a good faith discussion.

Zak, fully honest questions here and not trolling: Are you considering suicide right now? Are you in an unable-to-feed-family situation?

[Zak S]

Zak, fully honest questions here and not trolling: Are you considering suicide right now? Are you in an unable-to-feed-family situation?

Your actions up until now have not made me trust you enough to have this conversation.

Again:

I am willing to enter into a formal agreement to have a good faith conversation--of any kind, with any kind of stakes for me i I break the agreement (since having a good faith conversation is not in any way a burden).

Since you have repeatedly, (three times now) been formally made this offer and you've refused to bite, I'd have to have no sense of self-preservation to trust you with a conversation like that with someone who apparently thinks it's an imposition or burden to make statements they stand behind.

I can't believe you'd think for a moment you could behave the way you have and then expect your victim to trust you like that.

I also am baffled by the fact that after all these years and after all that's happened in the RPG scene you don't understand that behaving like this has had massive real-world consequences for your victims