Enjoy.

[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.

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.

A) I'm alright with you 'not believing me'. I'm not going to dance through hoops for you or anyone and I don't think I can trust you either to have a respectful convo as per reasons given (multiple times). Especially after I tried to be open and honest with you (YMMV).

B) Eh? Is this a deliberate non-sequitur? Who knows...
Did I or did I not address this!? The Zak 'poo head' comment is to merely point out the difference between someone being a 'bit of a dick' on a forum and someone being an evil malicious bastard. For me there's a huge difference YMMV).

Copy and paste time me thinks for this second part:
"First off I've not read all 57 pages........... Point is, I've not seen all the accusations."

I never said that people didn't go beyond name-calling. But you seem to expect me to have seen everything on this 57 page thread. I have not and I've already said that!

"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..."

Seeing that wasn't good enough or somehow not absorbed. No one here should be actively trying to harm you to that level I'm referring to. Here or on any forum/platform. If they have they shouldn't.

That said... You've brought a certain level of ridicule directly onto yourself and some people are now just taking the piss. That is to say, I don't think they want to actively hurt you, but they do want to frustrate and mock you. Like Tubesock... That's his M.O. But I don't think he's doing it to be an 'evil bastard'. I've seen him on other threads and yeah, he gives it but also takes it.

As for your last point, I think I've addressed it above.

I think HDs is also trying to have a legit convo, but again it's the whole 'formal bullet point thingey'. Sigh...

[Zak S]

A) I'm alright with you 'not believing me'. I'm not going to dance through hoops for you or anyone and I don't think I can trust you either to have a respectful convo as per reasons given (multiple times). Especially after I tried to be open and honest with you (YMMV).

I am unaware of unable provable transgression of good faith I've made.

If I made one, please point to a specific, verifiable example.

Did I or did I not address this!? The Zak 'poo head' comment is to merely point out the difference between someone being a 'bit of a dick' on a forum and someone being an evil malicious bastard. For me there's a huge difference YMMV).

Are you saying that there is "acceptable misinformation" and "unacceptable misinformation"?

Because the specific misinformation on this forum has been responsible for exactly the consequences you described as meaningful:

People being near suicide and being unable to feed their families.

I never said that people didn't go beyond name-calling. But you seem to expect me to have seen everything on this 57 page thread. I have not and I've already said that!

So, if I showed you a specific piece of misinformation I could prove occurred, would you address it?

Y/n?

That is to say, I don't think they want to actively hurt you, but they do want to frustrate and mock you. Like Tubesock... That's his M.O. But I don't think he's doing it to be an 'evil bastard'. I've seen him on other threads and yeah, he gives it but also takes it.

it doesn't matter what the motive is --the obvious consequence of spreading misinformation is that people believe it, act on it, and try to harm the victim.

[Rob Necronomicon]

A) I'm alright with you 'not believing me'. I'm not going to dance through hoops for you or anyone and I don't think I can trust you either to have a respectful convo as per reasons given (multiple times). Especially after I tried to be open and honest with you (YMMV).

I am unaware of unable provable transgression of good faith I've made.

If I made one, please point to a specific, verifiable example.

Did I or did I not address this!? The Zak 'poo head' comment is to merely point out the difference between someone being a 'bit of a dick' on a forum and someone being an evil malicious bastard. For me there's a huge difference YMMV).

Are you saying that there is "acceptable misinformation" and "unacceptable misinformation"?

Because the specific misinformation on this forum has been responsible for exactly the consequences you described as meaningful:

People being near suicide and being unable to feed their families.

I never said that people didn't go beyond name-calling. But you seem to expect me to have seen everything on this 57 page thread. I have not and I've already said that!

So, if I showed you a specific piece of misinformation I could prove occurred, would you address it?

Y/n?

That is to say, I don't think they want to actively hurt you, but they do want to frustrate and mock you. Like Tubesock... That's his M.O. But I don't think he's doing it to be an 'evil bastard'. I've seen him on other threads and yeah, he gives it but also takes it.

it doesn't matter what the motive is --the obvious consequence of spreading misinformation is that people believe it, act on it, and try to harm the victim.

I really should be drawing or making music... This is like a carousel. I'm not using the quote thingy because I always fuck it up.

A) With you being snarky and me being unable to determine if you're just mocking me I feel having a conversation with you is unattainable at this moment in time. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything this is not a court, and it's a statement like that indicates that you may be just be acting in bad faith. Can I prove it?? Absolutely not... I can't say what you are or not thinking.

B) Really? After everything I've said you say this:

"Are you saying that there is "acceptable misinformation" and "unacceptable misinformation"?"

Did I ever say that 'misinformation' was ever acceptable??? I don't think so... Are you deliberately not listening?
If someone calls me a "disingenuous twat" and a "cnut" (which happened not too long ago) that's hardly malicious is it? It's digital hot air... But was it a true statement? I think not, as I try my best to be honest (but I am fallible), but at the same time the other individual thought that it was probably true. Even if I didn't...

Incidentally, I did plenty of name-calling in that thread too. Did I want to hurt that person? Not at all, I was just angry. So was he... I have no ill will, and I will happily talk to him and have done. No harm done as far as I'm concerned. One or two others here (that I won't name) that I feel are malicious I have told them to fuck off and definitely won't play that game.

This is interesting... Again we are back at the Y/N binary answer. Would I address a troll that was posting material that WAS malicious and actively and deliberately trying to you harm (in the severe way I described?).

I would have no choice not to. It would be a decent thing to do as a humanist. I would do the same thing for anyone (in that dire situation). If I was a religious person I'd be thinking along the lines of the 12 commandments (I'm using that in a very broad sense). Now that said I'm not a crusader either. But I'd always be available to anyone (even if I didn't know them well) as a person they could talk to if they needed help (well, I'd strive to be).

That doesn't mean I don't throw mud around this forum at people, I do. But only those who I consider are bad for the hobby like the Censors, woke scolds, and corporate evil shits (or general a-holes, etc.).

Regarding someone like Tubesock Actually, I can't speak for TS but I think he may fall into this category (correct me if I'm wrong). Or other trolls, I've seen on RPG.net or whatever.

You must remember... from their perspective you (and others) are considered legitimate targets. To them they are doing the lord's work to keep you, Vegner, Pundit and GrimJim out of the hobby. They would see it as their duty. So as far as they are concerned they are the good guys - so by trolling you and the others and by using any means necessary it's 'fair' because they are after a certain effect. To have you (and the rest) pushed out completely (if possible). So by them telling lies it's okay because it is rooting out the big evils. The equivalent of a pious fraud... But it's for the 'good of the community'.

So they don't see themselves as trolls (maybe ethical trolls perhaps). So to them, their motivation is good, because you're bad. And anyone that associates with you is bad also.

So yes... they can (and do) certainly cause harm. I'm not disputing that. For me, it's completely illogical and not a good thing to do. But they feel they are doing the right thing. Personally, I like to deal with stuff I can prove (where possible).

Let me ask you this, tho'. You ask me all about what I would do, I think I've pretty much laid the cards on the table. Would you defend GJ, Venger or Pundit? If we are talking about victims surely GJ is one, which his crippling depression, right? Even if there were things about them that you don't agree with? A lot of lies have been spread about them too.

[Zak S]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

[GeekyBugle]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

[Rob Necronomicon]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

[GeekyBugle]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

More than he deserves IMHO.

Edited to add:

It just occurred to me, maybe he's on the spectrum? Maybe it's not bad faith, he's just unable to read other people, even more than I am? I'm a highly functioning Aspie, maybe he's got a worst case?

[Rob Necronomicon]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

More than he deserves IMHO.

I appreciate that bro'.

[Zak S]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

And now Rob is a troll too...

You either do his song and dance when he tells you how he tells you or you're a troll.

This is what it feels like. I mean I don't know what else I can say... I think I've said everything I can. And I think I've been pretty polite about it too.

I asked you a direct question--

Here's that question again:

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?


---

If you want to claim to be "polite" or "speaking in good faith" or "genuine" or "not a troll" then do what anyone at a dinner table would do:

Answer the question.

Otherwise we can dispense with the hypothesis that you're acting in good faith. Because when people speak in good faith they answer questions.

[Rob Necronomicon]

Otherwise we can dispense with the hypothesis that you're acting in good faith. Because when people speak in good faith they answer questions.

Sure, tell the world that I'm a troll, fucker or whatever and that I've been working for Satan.

And this is why I no longer want to converse with him...

[Rob Necronomicon]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

I almost forgot.

Yes I do. Question answered!

Annnnd goodbye.

[Zak S]

Rob your response talked a lot about motive.

I am not talking about motive.

Do you understand? Y/N?
-
-
-
-

As for Grim Jim: I don't like him but I suffered a tremendous amount of harassment in about 2013 because trolls (like you and other people) made false claims (they admitted they were false) about him and I said they shouldn't do that.

Many of them held grudges to this day because I did and they were among the people that created the current situation. So would I defend someone no matter who they were? Yes. Not only that, but I suffered real material damage because of it. Because it's the right thing to do.

I almost forgot.

Yes I do. Question answered!

Annnnd goodbye.

Great, so, since you understand that I'm not talking about motive, we won't have to ever hear about that again.

You used the example above of someone calling you disingenuous while you claim you are not.

So, to be as accommodating as possible  I'll use that example:

That's a question with a real, genuine answer--either you are being disingenuous about something or you aren't. It isn't like "jerk" which is a matter of taste.

Now, someone may claim you are being disingenuous and believe it--but that doesn't matter that they believe it.

They either did all of the work necessary to prove this accusation was true before saying it out loud where it might influence others or they didn't.

If they did and are right: they are justified in saying it.

If they didn't even if they believe it is true: they are not. They are saying something with what they call in many jurisdictions "reckless disregard" for whether it's true.

1) An honest person checks whether a thing is true using every means they can before saying a false (negative) word about someone else.

2) And if they make a mistake, they apologize after.

Would you agree that these two things are true?

[HappyDaze]

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

It's totally fine if you don't want to trust me. That said, get some help from someone you trust, whoever that might be.

[deadDMwalking]

Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you.  In the 58 pages of this thread (and counting) I have pointed out multiple times where you're being an asshole.  Your sidebar with Rob Necronomicon about whether you're REALLY disingenuous or EVERYONE THINGS YOU'RE DISINGENUOUS but in your secret heart of hearts you KNOW you're not is really telling.  You really are insisting that people should not trust their own perceptions regarding other peoples' motives because contrary to all available evidence, they might actually be mistaken.

You are an asshole because that is what you are advocating.  Do you not see that? That's not 'avoiding misinformation'.  That's YOU printing a LICENSE to be an ASSHOLE while simultaneously DISMISSING THEIR PERCEPTION OF REALITY.  That's also called gaslighting, and something that I  KNOW you've been accused of by others.  Now, if I know you REGULARLY exhibit a specific behavior in my dealings with you, and someone else says that they have seen that specific behavior when they deal with you, obviously I'm inclined to believe them.  Most people are 'consistent' - if you're a generally good person you're going to do generally good things, and if you suddenly do something 'bad' people will say 'that doesn't seem like something he would do'.  There are times when someone has told me about something bad someone I know has done and I've been skeptical - that's not the kind of thing they normally do, and if it's true, you'd expect some additional context that might be missing.  I'll usually make a point of saying something like 'if that's true, that's really concerning'.  On the other hand if someone is accused of something that is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR BEHAVIOR, even if it is a 'he said/she said' or 'he said/they said' or whatever pronoun you favor in this hypothetical, I'm going to be inclined to believe the accusation.  That doesn't mean that I'll spread it as true - as you say, that MIGHT be irresponsible.  In the cases where it is relevant I may share with the caveat that it is not something I have proof of, but that it is something concerning enough that someone should watch out for it. 

But all of this talk about 'spreading misinformation' is sleight of hand, asshole.  For someone to be guilty of spreading misinformation, the information they're spreading must be false.  Now, you're trying to simultaneously make the claim that if they aren't 100% certain and/or haven't done what you consider SOLELY IN YOUR OWN DISCRETION to be appropriate 'fact-checking', that sharing that information is automatically irresponsible and should simultaneously count as misinformation. 

Well, asshole, you don't get to decide unilaterally what is the appropriate standard of evidence.  You'd be well within your rights to say something like 'I think deadDMwalking is being grossly unfair when he calls me an asshole because I've ONLY EVER BEEN POLITE AND RESPECTFUL' and you'd be lying, but at least people would be clear about where we disagree.  Of course, that's never been your claim, has it?  Instead your claim is 'I've been mean to deadDMwalking, but he was mean first and therefore HE DESERVES IT'.  Well, Zak, if it's a question of 'deserve', I definitely think that you do deserve it.  When I respond to you in the same way that you respond to me (mirroring) or lay out detailed reasons why I think your behavior makes you an asshole, I'm doing it because I think that you're a slimy piece of excrement and your favorite tactic is to pretend that you don't have a hidden agenda,  that your different standards of evidence for yourself versus those that disagree with you are completely reasonable, and that you can ALWAYS place the burden of PROVING BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT even things people have seen with their own eyes while never doing the same.  In short, there's no point in having a conversation with you - you are the definition of a bad faith actor.   

And this being the internet, there's always someone new who will be meeting you for the first time.  And while I think they deserve to make up their own mind, since these patterns of behavior I've held up for your review over and over again are likely to come up, people ought to be aware.  I am witness to a 'bajillion' (or at least 10) people engaging you in good faith, beginning to recognize your bullshit, try to call you on your bullshit, then watch you spaz out and start spamming some off-tangent shit like 'POST  518'. 

So yes, I think you're an asshole.  I'm fine with admitting that my definition of asshole is entirely subjective, and I admit that there's room for people to disagree.  But I don't think my definition is so unusual that people are not better served hearing my opinion of you. 

And you should feel very special, Zak.  I have met a lot of people online, and this being the internet, there have been a bajillion assholes (or at least 10).  You're the only one that I feel deserves the special consideration of being called out in advance for anyone engaging in a conversation with you.  We're not at the point where I'm digitally following you around the internet to proactively warn everyone that you might encounter (and I would consider that harassment).  But for the places that I have even a shred of respect for the other posters, I feel that my efforts to warn everyone about exactly the behaviors you've demonstrated in this thread OVER AND OVER AND OVER are worthwhile. 

Dealing with you is exhausting.  I know a lot of people who enjoy a friendly disagreement (like arguing whether Superman or Batman is the better superhero).  'Debating' with you is like arguing with a 4-year-old with his fingers in his ears screaming 'nuh-uh, nuh-uh, to infinity', at least that's how it always ends, and after seeing so many people say, "Zak, I'm tired of arguing with you, it's just not worth it", it's VITAL to warn people.  The one resource we all have a finite amount of is time.  When people spend 3 days or 3 weeks arguing with you, jumping through hoops, posting quotes and detailed research and watching you just pretend they didn't, throwing both casual and deeply personal insults at anyone that suggests that dealing with you was ANYTHING LESS THAN THE HIGHPOINT OF THEIR LIFE, just to say 'I wish I could have that time back', well, it'd be UNETHICAL not to try to warn people.  Even if their experience happens to be different (one can hope), the right thing to do is give them a heads up.  Some people ARE NOT WORTH DEALING WITH. 

And Zak, in my mind that's the worst thing I could say about a person.  I believe just everyone is worth talking to, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE, maybe even ESPECIALLY IF YOU DISAGREE.  I can't think of a single other person in the world that I am willing to say 'that person is just not worth it'.  It's a VERY LOW BAR and you are literally the only person in the world that I can think of that has failed to clear it. 

And Zak, while I believe that warning others about you is worthwhile (even though I know that most people will realize quickly enough because I think most people are rather smart about who they choose to spend time with), I also have the tiniest shred of hope that you'll stop for a moment and ask yourself seriously, "Is there any chance that dDMw is right, and that I am an asshole"?  Because being an asshole is about BEHAVIOR and NOT PERSONALITY.  You can be a narcissist and avoid being an asshole - it's HARDER - but you can do it.  But in order to not be an asshole you have to be able to recognize when you're doing it and make a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to act differently.  I don't think you can change easily or quickly, but I do believe that if you wanted to, you could change.  If you did (based entirely on my subjective judgement of your actions), I would HAPPILY stop warning people against you. 

Personally, I see the time I've spent talking to and about you as a 'duty' - something that I do to help others.  If I didn't have that duty or obligation, I could spend that time doing things that fall more in the hedonistic category - reading a book, spending time working on my foreign language, or watching a western on TV.  But since those are for my own benefit (ie, selfish), I'm willing to accept a little personal sacrifice in service to my fellow man - at least, as I see it. 

So, we're on page 58.  Here's me calling you an asshole.  'Til the next page, this is me signing off and wishing you all the best (including recognizing you're an asshole and making changes to the way you interact with others). 

[Zak S]

Fine, then say the first time you thought I was being unfair and breaking faith with anyone.

Zak, I refuse to do your work for you. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

You've tried to excuse not being responsible for your claims by saying I broke faith first. So it's your work to prove that.

You can think what you want, but the second you open your mouth and claim publicly that a human did a bad thing, you now have to do the work.

Anything less is not ok and this idea about burden of proof goes back to pretty much the invention of rational debate and the people who wrote the law in every major country where english-language RPG discussion happens agrees with that idea and they wrote their defamation laws in accordance with that principle. If you are disagreeing with that standard of proof--take it up with the entire history of western culture.

No-one can be like "Ok you have a license to treat other people like shit based on your mystery evidence".