The trial of Vincent Baker

[RPGPundit]

I have stated I believe Creation should be judged independent of its Creator, aka judging Poison'd on its writing, not Vincent Baker or the antics of the GenCon players.

If Vince Baker was directly involved in the antics of gencon players, and then praised their antics as a wonderful example of play, I think he can be judged on that.

BUT I had not taken into consideration enough how much Consultantgate struck you, and possibly caused you financial and professional harm if WotC does not offer you future consulting gigs.

I never had any expectation of 'future consulting gigs' from WoTC.  That's not what sucked about Consultantgate.

I can't believe that whoever hired you and ZakS at WotC did not know that both of you carry some controversial baggage. How could WotC hiring either of you not generate some controversy?

There's a big difference between 'some controversy' (like the ridiculous but mostly harmless rant Sage Latorre made when my hiring was first announced), and what Consultantgate did, with its broad-spectrum lie-based crusade.

[Bren]

The reason you made this attack/joke is probably that you subscribe to internet-as-bar.

The reason I made it was I thought it was funny. It was. I know a joke isn't going to dent your ego or your swelled head, if you prefer. And I am doubtful of your claim that you are here only for the reasons you list or even predominantly for those reasons. I suspect you are a narcissist and just can't stop talking about yourself. But that's only my unprofessional opinion as an Internet barfly.

That is: you aren't here to efficiently figure out true things about games, how to run them and the people who make them...

We aren't going to agree on what is the most efficient method for learning about games and running them here on the RPGnet. Unlike you I don't live in world of pure black and white and I am able to separate the useful ideas from the other crap that gets posted. If I couldn't I wouldn't bother reading any of your posts anywhere.

But in regards to this site, I've seen precious little evidence that you spend time learning about games or running them here and you contribute even less. The vast majority of your posts are like those in this thread: a mix of self promotion, insulting other people, and carrying on your crusade against the people who have lied about you, insulted you, or who you feel have insulted you.

Go ahead and prove me wrong though. Post something interesting about games or running them here. It would be a welcome change from the majority of your posts on the forum.

[RPGPundit]

(It's also part of the rather baffling RPGsite tradition of treating each thread as if someone was holding a gun to your head forcing you to read it--rather than just moving on to other threads-- and then complaining that it exists. Which is moronic.)

Now be fair; from what I've seen that's pretty much a tradition of just about all internet forums.  The ones that are less-heavily moderated tend to show it more just because its's something more heavy-moderation forums will tend to crack down on.

But yes, it's moronic.

[Sommerjon]

Not quite.  It succeeded BECAUSE they listened to me (not just specifically that, but because they were already inclined to pay attention to the kind of things I told them they needed for success.  If they had not been inclined to that change already, they would not have hired me in the first place (much less listen to me) and they would have sucked.

Has it succeeded?  We don't know do we, lets wait a couple more years and see whats what.

Wizards has always been averse to courting controversy. Your idea that they now hired me specifically for that is beyond absurd.  There's no way Mike Mearls could have expected Consultantgate, because NO ONE expected that.

Really? Out of all of the thousands of RPG blogs out there what makes you or zak relevant?  Zak is easy.  He games with porn stars.  If his blog was dndwithmyhighschoolbuds no one would give a flip.

You're even easier, you push this

That's ridiculous. They hired me because I had the exact set of qualifications they wanted: I'm an outspoken old-school advocate, I was right in my predictions about 4e, I am well known among old-school gamers, I'm known from my reviewing skills to be no-holds-barred in my analysis and yet fair. They knew I wouldn't let money get in the way of telling them exactly what I thought, and wouldn't bullshit them.  And of course, because Mike Mearls had been reading my blog since Year One.

on your own website.  I will give your props for staying in character though.

[selfdeleteduser00001]

Isn't that what they call victim blaming? (half joking, half serious)

I would hope not, but I see what you are asking and maybe it is part of my natural trendecy to look for consensus and the Net isn't a place to achieve that often.
He has every right to write stuff about sex that other people may not like, we live in a (part of the) world where adults can still engage in adult art and discussion and I defend that.
The smear campaign was utterly and totally appalling.
What I noticed also, and this with other similar outrage wars, is that there are a LOT OF MISERABLE SHITS who just jump in on all sides and start death threating, rape threating and generally opening up the sewers of their minds, and sending the effluence to everyone on all sides.
Grief, if you get off sexually or emotionally on just saying SHIT to people, why not form a club and sign a consent form and just do it to each other like consenting adults?

[Melichor]

The reason I made it was I thought it was funny. It was.

Actually it wasn't.

From over here it looks like snark stemming from a personal dislike.

[apparition13]

Really? Out of all of the thousands of RPG blogs out there what makes you or zak relevant?  Zak is easy.  He games with porn stars.  If his blog was dndwithmyhighschoolbuds no one would give a flip.

People didn't stay for the porn stars, they stayed for the content.

This construction (Ent and Apparition) has an inaccurate premise:

The premise is that the thing at fault is the question.

No, the presmise is the thing at fault is the questioner, who knows what the answer is and will keep badgering someone until they say exactly what he wants them to say.

Well, for years, people very much like Apparition and Ent (though in many cases more influential than them) above have promoted an online culture of "don't ask questions, don't demand evidence"

Don't demand evidence?

Pundit: instead of repeating yourself over and over again, add a citation. The wikipedia article does a good job of supporting your definition.

Critics of "civilization" as a concept: get off your (deconstructionist and critical theory derived) high horses (the concept is bad because it's *barbarianist*, not that there is any need to provide evidence as to whether or not that is the case, or even if it is, if it's relevant) and provide your own evidence why the Celts or other group of your choice count as civilized. Look: some criteria in the article. Do they fit the criteria? Why or why not? And just saying so doesn't count, back yourself up with evidence.

Everyone: you're smarter than these arguments where everyone is just presenting their opinion as fact. You have the knowledge of the world at your fingertips. Do a perfunctory internet search and find some evidence to support (or perhaps change your mind about) your view. Use it to ground your claims. That way we might have more (in number as well as quality) productive discussions than these tedious definitiopinion* squabbles.


*Yes, these are deliberate neologisms.

Looks like asking for evidence to me.

[Zak S]

No, the presmise is the thing at fault is the questioner, who knows what the answer is and will keep badgering someone until they say exactly what he wants them to say.

This is wholly incorrect. There is no "thing I want them to say". I want to understand why someone did a bad thing--this is something I do not understand to begin with so I cannot possibly have a desired explanation. They have already gone far outside "what I want", usually by lying or talking smack without fact-checking first.

The only wrong answer would be evading the question entirely--which is so obviously not ok that it's not even allowed in courtrooms.

For example:

I will ask you right now--

Can you, Apparition, provide a real life example of me asking a leading question with a desired answer I am badgering a person to provide? If so, provide a link.

There is no preferred answer here:

A "no" is terrible--it means you are accusing me of wrongdoing with no evidence.

A "yes, here's a link" is likewise terrible--it means i have to go through the tedious process of explaining the mistake in your interpretation. But it still illuminates how you came to have such an inaccurate view.

Either way, the point is to figure out how you ended up saying something stupid, and whichever answer you give we presume must be true.

The only undesirable answer would be not answering the question and changing the subject.

[Brad]

Once again, Zak exposes himself as having paranoid-delusional behavior...this whole thread is a fucking riot.

[apparition13]

This is wholly incorrect. There is no "thing I want them to say". I want to understand why someone did a bad thing--this is something I do not understand to begin with so I cannot possibly have a desired explanation. They have already gone far outside "what I want", usually by lying or talking smack without fact-checking first.

The only wrong answer would be evading the question entirely--which is so obviously not ok that it's not even allowed in courtrooms.

For example:

I will ask you right now--

Can you, Apparition, provide a real life example of me asking a leading question with a desired answer I am badgering a person to provide? If so, provide a link.

There is no preferred answer here:

A "no" is terrible--it means you are accusing me of wrongdoing with no evidence.

A "yes, here's a link" is likewise terrible--it means i have to go through the tedious process of explaining the mistake in your interpretation. But it still illuminates how you came to have such an inaccurate view.

Either way, the point is to figure out how you ended up saying something stupid, and whichever answer you give we presume must be true.

The only undesirable answer would be not answering the question and changing the subject.

Why yes I can. How about this right here:

"A "yes, here's a link" is likewise terrible--it means i have to go through the tedious process of explaining the mistake in your interpretation."

You've just blatantly said that there can be only one correct interpretation, yours. And notice this bit too:

"Either way, the point is to figure out how you ended up saying something stupid, and whichever answer you give we presume must be true."

This is just "have you stopped beating your wife?", since either of the two answers you appear to think are the only possible ones result in my "saying something stupid". "Zak might be wrong about this" isn't an option.

See, that's the thing, it's (almost) always you having to go through the tedious process of explaining to others how they are wrong, not you having to go through the tedious process of trying to see something through someone else's viewpoint. And maybe ask them for more information. Maybe they hang themselves (like you just did), maybe you change your mind (I certainly don't need to on this evidence).

*****

But motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are so much easier than giving someone the benefit of the doubt, trying to see things from their viewpoint, looking for independent evidence, etc. Hey, I can understand your defensiveness, you've been attacked for stupid reasons and can justifiably be suspicious. But not every disagreement is an attack. You don't need to declare jihad on the "bad people" every time someone thinks you're wrong or in the wrong. Sometimes they will have a point. Sometimes they won't and are hypocrites who say "denying the experience" is bad while denying Mandy and Satine's experiences. Sometimes it's even more egregious, like the consultancy mess, and your pushback is fully justified.

But then you go on one of your Zakratic Diatribes, and even if I agree with you I wind up thinking "holy crap, why does he have to act the part of such an asshole all the time; he's just turning everyone undecided against him". Now if you get off on playing the martyr card awesome!, have fun with that. But if you're trying to change opinions, coming across as an ad hominem on yourself isn't helping.

[Zak S]

"A "yes, here's a link" is likewise terrible--it means i have to go through the tedious process of explaining the mistake in your interpretation."

You've just blatantly said that there can be only one correct interpretation, yours.

That does not make it a leading question.

Of course I (like pretty much everyone else seriously asserting anything, including you) believe  myself. Lawyers in all kinds of courts argue and assert that they are right--it doesn't make every one of their questions leading. Leading questions are often not allowed in courts while believing and asserting that you're right is totally allowed.

The fact that I ask you about your ideas while (in a supplementary comment) asserting that I believe my own does not constitute a leading question.

A leading question is a question which, in itself, suggests a correct answer (leading questions are usually barred in friendly testimony because they allow the lawyer to subtly suggest to friendly witnesses the answer that will help the credibility of their own client "Was it right after midnight?"). Neither answer is correct here, both answers reveal you as a bad person (one  will do so immediately, one will do so slowly after examining the bad evidence) and the question itself suggests no special information to you. It is a question honestly meant to illuminate your terrible thinking.

Leading questions are usually only considered invalid or a problem when they're used to suggest helpful answers to allied third parties. If I go "Was it right after midnight?" to a hostile witness, this is generally legit.

It also isn't a "loaded question" ("Are you beating your wife?")(requiring you accept a premise you haven't assented to just to answer in the form the question requests.) (Which is what I think you must really mean because the wife question is a loaded question.)

The question "Do you have evidence?" does not include a premise you don't agree with nor does it suggests which of the 2 answers is better (as you've just asserted: you believe you have evidence).  My later description of what I'd do if you gave an answer doesn't force you to assert your evidence is bad just to answer the question.

This is just "have you stopped beating your wife?", since either of the two answers you appear to think are the only possible ones result in my "saying something stupid". "Zak might be wrong about this" isn't an option.

The only two common answers are

"I have evidence"

"I do not"

(you could also answer "I can't remember" etc, but the options are genuinely limited. Saying "Zak might be wrong" still begs the question you'd be ask in any court after making such an accusation: Do you have any evidence?")

Giving the first answer ("I have evidence") does NOT require you to presuppose you are wrong, it simply shifts the responsibility to ME to prove you are wrong if I can. The fact I am confident that I can do it does not retroactively make the question unfairly  leading or loaded.

I am under an obligation to prove any accusation I make about you (such as: you are totally wrong about the leading question thing) and my defense must be airtight. I am, however, under no obligation to entertain the idea you might be right about such an obviously dumb idea any more than I have to be open to the idea that I am secretly a stack of lemons and hatchetfish. It would be totally against my nature to seriously ask an unfairly leading or loaded question--it would be like suddenly deciding I like brussels sprouts.

To review:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question: the question itself presupposes that wife beating occurred.

No answer can be given to the question in that form that does not accept the premise.

"Do you have evidence I beat my wife? PS If you do I'm sure it's bullshit" is not a loaded question at all. It merely includes supplementary information about the questioner's POV.

The questioned person can go "Yes, here it is" and in the process is accepting no premise they don't agree with. It is then up to the questioner to PROVE it's bullshit--because they are then making the claim against the other person (i.e. they claim by implication the answerer is mistaken or lying).

I believe what you're actually trying to express is that you don't like being asked questions by me and it makes you feel bad because it points out you've used the english language wrong and it's embarrassing to you on some level. And the words you reach for are "leading question" rather than the more accurate "question that is hard to answer without revealing I don't know what I'm talking about" and that is insulting and wrong and you should not have done it. In other words: you're tone policing and pretending it's some kind of rational critique.

So:
Do you have a real example of me asking an unfairly leading or loaded question? One that fits the definition of either phrase?

Because asking you for evidence after you've made an accusation cannot possibly be a trap: otherwise the entire legal system is based on "faux-rationalist" traps.

[crkrueger]

See, that's the thing, it's (almost) always you having to go through the tedious process of explaining to others how they are wrong, not you having to go through the tedious process of trying to see something through someone else's viewpoint. And maybe ask them for more information. Maybe they hang themselves (like you just did), maybe you change your mind (I certainly don't need to on this evidence).

Actually what you did was prove my point.  Zak's tone allows that to become the point of attack and people who make judgments based on tone will start to believe the accusations. (and no Zak, I'm not giving you PR advice before Christmas).

If you want to make your point, go grab a single concrete example of the Socratic leading trap questioning and link to it. Done.  Supposedly they should be easy to find, right?

[Brad]

So:
Do you have a real example of me asking a leading question?

Is this supposed to be ironic?

[Chivalric]

Since we're done with The trial of Vincent Baker, I guess it's time for the trial of Zak S...

:rolleyes:

[Justin Alexander]

I also never said he gives anyone 'secret orders'.  I said just the opposite, in fact, that he's complicit in his silence, able to enjoy the appearance of being above-it-all while he profits from what his fan base does.

Ah. So it's just a fascistic demand not only that everyone has to agree with you, but that they have to actively denounce everyone else as loudly as possible or they're not really agreeing with you.

... I love that you think that's actually better.

The two main differences is that there isn't an elite politburo that gets to decide what the fawning masses will consider 'correct' OSR.

... says the guy who periodically lambastes James Maliszewski because he's failed your OSR purity test.

I have nothing at all to be jealous of.

Which is what makes it so sad that you're so utterly consumed by it.