As I understand it, the publisher has already paid all the writer and artists, so Zak already has his money from Demon City. You can't hurt Zak by demanding a refund.
I think this can had to be opened. Let's just try not to spill them everywhere.
I suppose The Gauntlet's statement implies that the Pub could come under flak for not explicitly de-platforming him but I'm not really sure what to suggest that the mods do about that. I do suggest that
Baulderstone et. al. at least have some private confabulation (if they haven't already) to come up with an actual policy in the event that it does happen.
Zak was within a hair's breadth of us "de-platforming" him before this even happened. I don't know much about The Gauntlet, but we don't need anyone starting a harassment campaign against us to know how to deal with Zak on our own. We don't consider Zak to exactly be a friend of the forum based on past behavior, and I don't have the impression he thinks much of us.
They posted something about this publically that generated a little shit-storm of its own through its guilt-by-association viewpoint. A little google-fu should turn it up.
Yeah, I heard about that post. I just don't really know anything about them aside from that. In any case, veering into the surrounding shit-storms is what we don't want to do in this thread. Let's keep the focus on Zak.
Not for long, if he plans to do it here.
Even if anyone thinks it is, the point of the "no politics" is simply to avoid unnecessary drama. This is an important news story involving a prominent person in the RPG scene that is just impossible to ignore. I think the tension of talking around it would be worse than any potential drama talking about it generates.
I really think you shouldn't beat yourself up over this. You can't be expected to research everyone's past. If someone was best buds with him and ignoring all the red flags, I'd hoist an eyebrow, but this particular issue was not previously public, so you can't really expect to deduce things like this yourself.
To piggy-back on this, Daniel, I have seen your response to this all over social media. It's been loud, unequivocal, and rapid. Don't be too hard on yourself.
Indeed.
Eh, this ain't a court of law and I don't think we're in a position to validate his rebuttals any more than we can validate the accusations. And the last think I'd like to do would be to witness the pub provide an open forum for Zak to vent more drama. Picture that. If this was anyone else and we didn't have four accounts, I might be more inclined to agree. Maybe. But I can't be bothered. Let him mount his defense elsewhere.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think you're in any danger of that happening. As
Endless Flight and
Baulderstone have stated, that particular poster was close to being banned anyway simply for the disruptive effect he was having on the forum; I think it's fair to say that no other poster has quite warped the site just by showing up like he did.
For the record, I'm with you on both accounts.
That one is easy for me to do, since I don't like his style too much anyway
.I don't mind the admins agreeing to ban anyone (me included, though I'd kinda dislike that for personal reasons). I'm not saying banning Zach is a bad idea (though I'd probably have given him a last word option).I get what you're saying, but I don't think you're in any danger of that happening. As
!
I think this was the right thing to do. A couple of months ago I had never heard of him until i saw his antics here, and wouldn't blame you for booting him just on that basis. From a moral standpoint, the evidence seems pretty solid, and I've had enough experience of abusive narcissists to have (shall we say) certain opinions on the matter. From a practical standpoint, you probably don't have the luxury of sitting on the fence on this one. The issue is politicised in a way that claiming to be apolitical is not going to fly. Taking a stand on this is the right thing to do for quite a number of reasons.
