Enjoy.

[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. 

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

Zak, that's your rule, not mine. I don't need to prove that you're an asshole.  Likewise, I don't have to PROVE to anyone, least of all you, that my accusation is true.  I'm absolutely satisfied with the proposition that they can make an evaluation of me and my stated motives, and you, and your stated motives, and come to their own decision. Further, a specific 'initial incident' is immaterial to whether you act as an asshole now.  Likewise, if you felt that I, uniquely, deserved to be treated as an asshole (which you have not said), that would not excuse your behavior to other people in this thread that easily qualifies as an asshole.  You can PRETEND that every single person that you've been an asshole to deserved it, but I know better.  The reasons I think you're an asshole, the specific behaviors I've called you out for - those are well documented in this very thread. 

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.

I don't like it when you say that someone didn't address every single aspect of your post therefore they've walked away from the dinner table and/or therefore don't deserve any more engagement.  To be very clear, I am not claiming that you broke faith first.  I think I could make that claim, but I don't need to.  What is important is that I am asserting that I have seen you be an asshole to myself and others in times and places that I don't think made sense.  Like many other posters here, it's possible for me to butt heads with a poster in one conversation and it is a non-issue in EVERY OTHER CONVERSATION WE HAVE.  Sometimes people end up in ridiculous positions in one conversation, but they're in a much more reasonable position in another conversation.  YOU ARE SPECIAL in that you have repeatedly proven INCAPABLE of changing your behavior; not only are you ALWAYS RIDICULOUS, your asinine demands regarding permissible structure for a conversation are CRAZY, and when I refuse to play along it is because I'm acting in good-faith, unlike you, you crazy asshole. 

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.

No, that's your rule, Zak, not mine. And I take umbrage with me making the claim that 'you did a bad thing'.  You treat people badly, like an asshole, would, and I propose that the reason is because you're an asshole.  But I don't think that treating people badly is 'doing a bad thing'.  It COULD be. It OFTEN is.  But I'm not without the ability to self-reflect.  If calling someone names was a bad thing, I'd be doing a bad thing.  I assert that when I call you an asshole, I'm doing a good thing.  I further assert that when you call people names, I THINK IT IS BAD, because your apparent motives are entirely self-serving.  I'm making inferences, and unlike you, asshole, I don't think I'm perfect or incapable of making mistakes.  BUT, in your case, I feel that you've provided sufficient evidence in this thread.  Are you making the claim that you haven't engaged in name-calling?  If you're not making that claim, I consider the truth sufficiently demonstrated.  If you do want to state explicitly that you don't engage in name-calling, I am willing to provide at LEAST 3 examples (again) where you have. 

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.

Blah blah blah.  Zak, you're not capable of 'rational debate'. You gish-gallop, you move your goal posts more often than you MAKE POSTS.  Like seriously, you will move your goal-posts IN THE SAME POST.  Of course, you continually deny that you've EVER changed your position or standards of evidence.  REPEATEDLY you claim that if two of your statements that appear CONTRADICTARY it is because you're not an expert in communicating to idiots, so you claim it is your audience's job to discretely and politely contact you, ask dozens or hundreds of clarifying questions, and only after you've agreed that  you're full of shit (which you will never do) should they point out that you're full of shit. Like an asshole. 

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

I don't need a license to treat you the way I do. People are free to make the determination that I'm treating you unfairly. If ANYONE wants to claim that I've treated you unfairly, I'm happy to engage with them on why I think you're an asshole (again, because I've already done it for you).  I don't want to spam 'see post xxx', but I could.  Likewise, I don't expect people to read all 58 pages of this thread.  If someone did say, "I'm new to this conversation, can you provide a short summary with supporting quotes", I think that's something I could provide.  Ultimately, I expect people to use their powers of discernment to evaluate my statements and supporting evidence against your statements and supporting evidence and come to a decision about who is right and who is wrong.  Since you're familiar with juries, this is effectively the same thing. 

I will admit to the slightest frustration that you CONTINUALLY dismiss evidence that has been provided as 'never provided'.  That makes you a liar, and again means that you hold yourself to a different standard than anyone else.  It's one of the MANY reasons I think you're an asshole.  But I'm only slightly frustrated.  You're a slimy piece of shit, Zak, and you have no moral standards and all of your claims to fairness or truth are performative and are not representative of your ACTIONS. 

And that's not always obvious when you first engage in a conversation.  And people deserve to be warned before they waste their time on you. 

And it's okay that you don't agree with me.  Like I've said before, I believe you are a narcissist, and you are truly incapable of the level of self-reflection it would require to stop being an asshole.  But maybe if you hear the same thing from enough people enough times, you can change?  Maybe? 

For your sake, I hope so. 

[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.

Zak, that's your rule, not mine.

As I already said, that rule is not mine.

It precedes me by thousands of years

https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/#:~:text=The%20burden%20of%20proof%20fallacy%20is%20a%20logical%20fallacy%20that,shifting%20it%20to%20someone%20else.

Likewise, if you felt that I, uniquely, deserved to be treated as an asshole (which you have not said), that would not excuse your behavior to other people in this thread that easily qualifies as an asshole.

You gish-gallop, you move your goal posts more often than you MAKE POSTS.

If you're saying I did something bad in this thread, you, again, can't point to it.

Your troll code of refusing to provide support means you are, by definition, always wrong--at least to any rational observer.

[Tubesock Army]

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

[Zak S]

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

[GeekyBugle]

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

[GeekyBugle]

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.

[Zak S]

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

Not at all.

Although I don't have asperger's I am going to (continue to) type very clearly and without any of the collquial flourishes that would characterize casual speech in order to avoid confusion on the part of third parties who might be reading:

These are two trolls. They are separate.

Deaddmwalking is saying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is "Zak's rule".

A different troll name Tubesock something is implying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is from thousands of years ago,

These two trolls attempting to dogpile the same target (like you are) disagree with each other.

I hope that this very simple and aspergers-esque explanation clears up any confusion your trolling has caused.

You won't acknowledge that what you posted was inaccurate, which proves that you are dishonest and not acting in good faith.

This makes this little episode super convenient:

Two trolls defending the idea of posting logical fallacies and then a third lying (provably) about what I said in a venue where it can be checked. All in the space of this one page.

[Zak S]

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.

Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

[GeekyBugle]

"Hey guys the rule against eating shellfish is thousands of years old. It's not mine, and furthermore, by virtue of its age, it's immutable law that everyone is beholden to. Sorry, them's the rules!"

-Zak

Well which is it?

Deaddmwalking this is my rule, now you're saying it's an old rule.

But more to the point:

If you want to decide that logical fallacies aren't a thing anymore then I think that's probably the clearest demonstration yet that everything you say can be ignored.

And here's part of the whole problem, you're copnflating people and then sperging out when called out.

Not at all.

Although I don't have asperger's I am going to (continue to) type very clearly and without any of the collquial flourishes that would characterize casual speech in order to avoid confusion on the part of third parties who might be reading:

These are two trolls. They are separate.

Deaddmwalking is saying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is "Zak's rule".

A different troll name Tubesock something is implying the idea that "logical fallacies are bad" is from thousands of years ago,

These two trolls attempting to dogpile the same target (like you are) disagree with each other.

I hope that this very simple and aspergers-esque explanation clears up any confusion your trolling has caused.

You won't acknowledge that what you posted was inaccurate, which proves that you are dishonest and not acting in good faith.

This makes this little episode super convenient:

Two trolls defending the idea of posting logical fallacies and then a third lying (provably) about what I said in a venue where it can be checked. All in the space of this one page.

Here you are doubling down on conflating the two, while demanding I aknowledge I'm in the wrong for calling you out on doing so...

Very convenient indeed.

[GeekyBugle]

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.

Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

I never agreed with them on that, only your deranged brain could interpret me calling you out for conflating them with agreement.

Who cares about what he said? Where in my post do I even get close to saying ANYTHING about him?

Again, only your deranged brain could see what's clearly not there.

IMHO you have some mental issues, I implore you to search help.

[GeekyBugle]

No, sorry, not the same. The burden of proof being on the accuser is the fundation upon which innocen until proven guilty is built. It could be 10 years, 10 minutes or 10 millenia old and it still be a good basis.

Great, now you are disagreeing with the other two trolls, who do not believe that burden of proof is on the accuser

Now, when I call someone an asshole that's a matter of opinion, and as such there's no need for proof. Insisting on providing such is an asshole move.

Since Deaddmwalking' claims went beyond namecalling and into false fact claims, this isn't a relevant point.

Unless you're contesting Deaddmwalking's fact claims and saying they aren't real.

I never agreed with them on that, only your deranged brain could interpret me calling you out for conflating them with agreement.

Who cares about what he said? Where in my post do I even get close to saying ANYTHING about him?

Again, only your deranged brain could see what's clearly not there.

IMHO you have some mental issues, I implore you to search help.

I forgot to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a troll, so go fuck yourself.

FYI Troll: Someone who says things he/she doesn't really believe to get a reaction of others.

So, unlesss you're claiming I don't believe what you're quoting me saying you're clearly lying about me.

Will you apologize as per your own rule?

Or will you just keep on sperging out?

[deadDMwalking]

The S. in Zak S. is for Sperging.  Zak Sperging. 

This is not a comment that I wish to provide proof for. 

[GeekyBugle]

The S. in Zak S. is for Sperging.  Zak Sperging. 

This is not a comment that I wish to provide proof for.

"Post 518"

[Zak S]

I forgot to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a troll,

Again, only your deranged brain...

sperging

Obviously only a troll would talk like this.

The S. in Zak S. is for Sperging.  Zak Sperging. 
This is not a comment that I wish to provide proof for.

Or like this.

[blackstone]

59 pages of Zak's narcissism.

Wow. Just, wow.

Dude, you need help.