[Kickstarter] Demon City by Zak Smith aka. Sabbath

[Bunch]

He was already on my ignore list because his signal to noise ratio sucked.

His online behavior makes all the accusations against him easier to believe.

Bill Cosby accusations shocked me. Zaks don't. Banning him simply makes it easier for me to understand threads here better since zenforo uses a hard ignore policy.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I am disgusted at myself for, even in small ways, having helped enable Zak in this, both through purchasing and recommending his books and through not taking the previous allegations against and discussions of him seriously enough; I got caught up in the culture war bullshit and gave him far too much benefit of the doubt.

I am confused. The fact there are credible accusations against Zak does not mean every accusation against Zak is suddenly a valid grievance surely? Most of those accusations are still unsubstantiated or irrational. Pundit (and other, less well-known, more eloquent, adventure-writing people) can occasionally be dicks on the internet but that doesn't mean they are sex perverts. Let's not suddenly lionize his opponents, who accused him of entirely different awful behavior then he displayed here. Its like with RPGPundit, you don't need to believe he is a bigot (I mean I don't know I haven't read the guy in ages) in order to believe he is a total asshole.

I would do the courtesy of further disavowing of Zak but anyone who follows me knows I am not really a Zak (or Raggi) fan.

 

[Baulderstone]

I prefer not named the 2 authors because for one, I only their Twitter handle and the other has some fear about some cruel backlash.

I greatly appreciate that. There are always a lot of people looking for "acceptable targets" to beat up on, and many of them are having a field with this. It's an especially tasteless approach as the gist of Mandy's initial post was on the way he used people, with his victims often being used to look supporters. Declaring open season on anyone that ever supported Zak seems exactly the wrong thing to do in the heat of the moment.
[/QUOTE]

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.

As his been said already, the only reason we never booted him after his last visit was that it looked like he wasn't coming back.

 

[Edgewise]

For those who are vexing about some kind of internet witch burning, I have to say that I'm not seeing it here. All I'm hearing is people saying that this is nasty behavior, they believe the (four) accusations, and nobody liked Zak much, anyway. Realistically, I don't see how it could get any more low-key than that.

That said, I do agree with PrinceofNothing that the waters are a little muddied by the fact that the prior set of accusations leveled at Zak were a lot less substantial. I've seen a lot of bloggers express regret for not listening to the warnings about Zak, but I've never before heard any accusations of this kind of behavior. So I'm not sure what they are talking about. I suspect it's just a case of folks doing everything they can to disassociate themselves with Zak ASAP.

I can't think of a worse time for Zak for this to come out. On top of the current zeitgeist, his one-man campaign to alienate the world has not helped him at all. Presumably, even those truth-loving secret game designer forums he was touting to us are giving him the cold shoulder.

As his been said already, the only reason we never booted him after his last visit was that it looked like he wasn't coming back.

I feel like that's a pretty optimistic stance, but perhaps there were some private communications that I am unaware of. I suppose it's all moot now.

 

[Dumarest]

Luckily it turns out this was just a false alarm. Zack fact-checked the accusations and went on Twitter to say they're all untrue and he's issuing "a full statement that carefully addresses all of it" later today.

 

[Baulderstone]

I feel like that's a pretty optimistic stance, but perhaps there were some private communications that I am unaware of. I suppose it's all moot now.

Fine, fine. You have me there.

If you want full backstage disclosure, it's just a lot less fun to ban someone in absentia. We were annoyed enough at Zak that we wanted to wait for him to come back to ban him. Unprofessional? Perhaps, but can you really blame us?

Luckily it turns out this was just a false alarm. Zack fact-checked the accusations and went on Twitter to say they're all untrue and he's issuing "a full statement that carefully addresses all of it" later today.

Yeah, I am sure we are all going to look real silly when lays down the facts. I'm sure he will just point us to the Tumblr account of his new girlfriend who just made a post insisting that he is innocent, and the smartest, most handsome man ever.

 

[AsenRG]

Luckily it turns out this was just a false alarm. Zack fact-checked the accusations and went on Twitter to say they're all untrue and he's issuing "a full statement that carefully addresses all of it" later today.

Well, I'm for one going to listen to both sides when he does. Burn me with him if you wish, but untrue accusations have been known to happen, and I don't mean just against charismatic figures* such as ZachS.
In fact, I'm not even going to read the accusations before we have his version, in order to avoid being influenced by either side, because I feel I owe almost everyone at least unbiased attitude before making up my opinion.
That said, the very presence of Mandy Morbid in the list is rather damning, and I'm all for any crimes committed being presented to the courts.

*You can see in my earlier post just how charismatic I find him, if you care. The tl;dr version is that I find him useful because of him being a nihilist. His work helps me develop good antagonists, that's why I own some of it.
Well, that and Bundle of Holding.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Well, I'm for one going to listen to both sides when he does. Burn me with him if you wish, but untrue accusations have been known to happen, and I don't mean just against charismatic figures* such as ZachS.
In fact, I'm not even going to read the accusations before we have his version, in order to avoid being influenced by either side, because I feel I owe almost everyone at least unbiased attitude before making up my opinion.
That said, the very presence of Mandy Morbid in the list is rather damning, and I'm all for any crimes committed being presented to the courts.

*You can see in my earlier post just how charismatic I find him, if you care. The tl;dr version is that I find him useful because of him being a nihilist. His work helps me develop good antagonists, that's why I own some of it.
Well, that and Bundle of Holding.

Keep his work separated from him, by all means. Im not going to condemn him, but this absolutely shoild go through legal channels. Which means I would also not support him.

The guy might set my teeth on edge. And havi g read some of the allegations against him, plus having had minor dealings with him myself, I really wouldn't stick my neck out for or against Zak at this time.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Luckily it turns out this was just a false alarm. Zack fact-checked the accusations and went on Twitter to say they're all untrue and he's issuing "a full statement that carefully addresses all of it" later today

There as a short YDIS poll but I found the angle that he will attempt to blame it on Mandy's relatives causing her to view his behavior through a lens of prudishness and conservatism via two dozen meticulously selected screencaps to be the most eerily convincing. There's little point now. Raggi is probably going to have to cut him loose because of the Drivethru-ban and by now very credible accusations. I am cautiously hoping he will at least launch some sort of retaliatory strike like a predatory Moby Dick and he is never going to admit culpability but what is he going to do? Its 4 against 1, and to man those ramparts beside him takes suicidal bravery. Its going to look bad no matter how you spin it.

If you want full backstage disclosure, it's just a lot less fun to ban someone in absentia. We were annoyed enough at Zak that we wanted to wait for him to come back to ban him. Unprofessional? Perhaps, but can you really blame us?

You should have lured him with some sort of bait, then banished him before he can pin you down on some sort of logical fallacy. "Frostbitten & Mutilated similarities to old Role Aids Module." would have been my first attempt.

 

[AsenRG]

Keep his work separated from him, by all means.

I almost always manage to do exactly that.

Im not going to condemn him, but this absolutely shoild go through legal channels. Which means I would also not support him.

And that's the reasonable position until a conviction is issued, IMO.

 

[zweihander]

I'm not fan of RPG Pundit, but I find it kind of disgusting the way you have been going around the Internet trying to associate him with Zak in your comments about this situation. I have a lot of complaints about Pundit, but stop trying to drag him into this. I know you are mad you aren't allowed to shill your game on his forum anymore, but this is pretty gross way to keep your vendetta going.

As I said before, let's keep it on Zak.

Zak Sabbath is endemic of a deep-seated problem in the OSR. I can tell you, as someone who trafficks in publisher circles both publicly and privately, the public has no idea what is going on behind closed doors.

We, as in the tabletop role playing community, aren’t doing a good enough job to call out misogyny. To call out transphobia. To call out online harassment. To deplatform people who are literally committing crimes online and in the streets.

Zak is the worst of all kinds, but John Tarnowski is also endemic of the same issues that pervade the OSR - they have become a community of gatekeepers who use their power and influence to attack, harass and/or abuse.

I don’t mean any offense by this, but don’t tell me how I feel. This has nothing to do with an axe to grind, vendetta or “need to shill” on his forum. And in case you didn’t know, shill is an incredibly racially-charged word to use, particularly when volleyed at any publisher you’d invite to participate in this forum.

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

John Tarnowski is a problem.
Zak Sabbath is a problem.
Bill Webb is a problem.
James Desborough is a problem.
Sean Patrick Fannon is a problem.
Matthew McFarland is a problem.
CA Suleiman is a problem.

I refuse to stay silent about harassment, abuse and rape in the OSR community. And, you know as well as I do that this thread - like all threads - encompass more than its subject matter and tolerated as it becomes broader than its subject line.

I am 99% of the time a kind person. A good person. Always honest, even if the truth hurts. Someone who was raised with Midwestern mentality and politeness. But right now, I need to step away for a bit from here. I’m a bit incensed over the condemnation, and irritated that this “shill shit”, rapacious as it may be on 4chan, would be uttered here by a moderator.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Oh Daniel Fox No...

 

[Endless Flight]

Please, this thread is not a catch-all for every person in the RPG community that may be problematic for certain people. I reopened it to talk about Zak, his Kickstarter and what people wanted to talk about regarding the allegations against him. Keep it focused.

 

[AsenRG]

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

I agree, criminals and misogynists should be called out.

When it comes to accusation of crime, however, whether the accusation is true in each individual instance is true, is something I'd rather have determined by a court. A court that can determine one way or another and is trying to not be influenced by emotions and the volume of the accusations.

If that makes me a not-good person, at least I'm Lawful Evil/Neutral.

Also, is it just me, or is this thread about to break the no politics rule of the forum, and look back while it's leaving it behind with at least second cosmic velocity?

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I agree, criminals and misogynists should be called out.

Sure but can we agree that the latter is to a degree subjective and ambiguous and the severity can vary while the former is most emphatically not (I know there are legal grey areas, but I think we know rape when we see it).

Also, is it just me, or is this thread about to break the no politics rule of the forum, and look back while it's leaving it behind with at least second cosmic velocity?

Daniel just summoned a bunch of monsters in one turn alright.

 

[TristramEvans]

So we're doing this. OK.

Here are my thoughts.

No, this is not inherently a political matter, it's criminal. In a perfect world, Zak would be facing criminal charges, but I don't think we'll see that for obvious reasons, so instead Zak faces the court of public opinion. Unfortunately that means those with political agendas are using this situation.

Since the story broke I've been closely following it on almost every venue, including TBP, the Site, ENworld, Facebook, YouTube comments etc.

The reactions have ranged from sympathy to just the most reprehensible sociopathic crap you could imagine, but what I want to address here is my opinion and the notion of "innocent until proven guilty". First off, I would normally say that "innocent until proven" is my default stance. I don't like "call-out culture", I don't think that in most cases Internet hate mobs attacking a person's livelihood is ethical behaviour or has any real association with Justice, no matter what a group calls itself or it's ideologies.

That said, my stance in this case is that there is sufficient evidence to condemn Zak and I believe his accusers. If this did reach a court, evidence would be based on witness testimony, physical evidence, and the established character of the defendant. Obviously we don't have physical evidence, but that's not necessary for a conviction because in most cases after the fact that would be nearly impossible. But we do have now the testimony of numerous witnesses coming forward.

Before I talk about that, however, consider Zak as the defendant. To say that Zak has an abrasive personality is kinda like saying the ocean is wet. The moral grandstanding, a seeming inability to debate, even converse, without resorting to constant ad-hominems, and an obtuse onetruewayism. None of which are damning other than to say "he's an asshole." At the time I imagined he was probably somewhere on the autism spectrum based on his seeming inability to converse, to grasp adult concepts of morality, and apparent incapability to recognize and respond correctly to humour. I've since come to believe this behavior is the product of intense narcissism.

For those who aren't familiar or need a refresher, here's a relatively comprehensive history of the controversies surrounding Zak:

http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-timeline-of-zak-wars.html

Around the time of consultant-gate, I'd encountered Zak a handful of times online and those were not pleasant experiences, I thought he was a massive tool. However, I was still more than ready to defend any attacks against him and Pundit that were (and remain) largely unfounded lies. The biggest problem has always been that the loudest voices condemning Zak online were, frankly, really awful people I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw. Ettin? David Hill? Nyberg? A condemnation from those sorts - people I knew to b dishonest harassing trolls - are practically a recommendation from my PoV.

My thoughts at the time was that Zak was a dick, but the vendetta against him was politically motivated. And so , even when seemingly damning evidence from twitter surfaced, I was still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt regarding things taken out of context. And to be perfectly honest, I could give a crap about known harassers getting harassed. I wanted nothing to do with Zak, who had all the online charisma of an enema bag, but I wasn't going to go along with condemning him.

Up until the Shannon A imposter incident. That was ultimately damning in a way that sufficiently removed any benefit of the doubt, and showed clearly that Zak was not only willing to be childish, dishonest and trolling, but also refuse to take responsibility. In short, Zak's character was sufficiently tarnished. That did not (and still doesn't) translate into me retroactively believing every unsupported accusation against him, hence I tolerated his presence on The Pub, as unpleasant as it was and despite my personal bias against him. I felt like my duty as moderator was to treat him fairly (even if I did get in the occasional dig).

Meanwhile I've never interacted with Mandy Morbid ever, nor the other women who have come forward. But there is a significant difference not only in the magnitude off the accusation, but in that I have seen no evidence that calls into question any of the accuser's character, nor do they have anything to gain from coming out (actually they stand to lose).

In other words, considering Zak's lack of credibility combined with the numerous safe-to-assume reliable witness accounts, I think it's more than enough to conclude his guilt for any individual.

In other other words , while I've seen people state this is just a "he-said-she-said" situation, it is not. It is several reliable witness accounts vs the uncharacteristic near silence of someone who sacrificed their credibility a while ago.

That silence itself speaks volumes in regards to someone who up to this point obsessively googled themselves to furiously "fact-check" at any place online he wasn't banned from. Instead , a day later, so far all we've gotten in response is a half-hearted denial when the link to Mandy's post was thrown in his face on twitter a day after the fact. While in most cases I might extend the benefit of the doubt that the person is (wisely) taking time to make a considered rebuttal, that goes against Zak's typical behaviour.

Obviously this isn't a court of law still, so I don't see it as anyone's right to "punish" Zak, it certainly is a credible enough for me to conclude that Zak S is a complete scumbag rapist-abuser.

In other words, he deserves to be, at the very least, ostracized from the hobby.

Now all of that said, this doesn't mean that the enemy of my enemy are my friends. The "purity tests" that have started in the wake of this revelation are not something I condone.

I have no reason to believe that people who worked with Zak professionally had any idea about what went on in Zak's personal life, and to hold Mike Mearls (as one example) responsible for this is disgusting and just as much harassment as anything Zak was previously accused of. I don't believe this awful revelation validates the witch hunts of hate groups. And I don't think those of us who may have defended Zak in prior years are guilty of anything. Nobody knew except those personally involved with Zak IRL. I also will not hold it against anyone who enjoyed or continues to enjoy gaming products he worked on. Those exist outside of the author's behaviour. I enjoy several Roman Polanski films. I still think he's a pedophile predator who should be behind bars. OTOH, I also appreciate those who want none of their money going to a scumbag and cannot or will not separate the author from the work. IMHO, these are both equally valid POV.

I don't know if we've officially banned Zak here at The Pub yet, but I will never interact with him or allow his presence in any capacity again.

 

[Luca]

For those who are vexing about some kind of internet witch burning, I have to say that I'm not seeing it here. All I'm hearing is people saying that this is nasty behavior, they believe the (four) accusations, and nobody liked Zak much, anyway. Realistically, I don't see how it could get any more low-key than that.

It's not that simple, unfortunately. Apart from trying to eject him forever from RPG circles, there's at least one poster on TBP which sent emails to the art galleries with which he works. It's the usual internet mob hate shit show; people are taking upon themselves the task to destroy someone's else life as thoroughly as possible.
The usual "I can't send people to jail so I'm not bound to court-of-law levels of proof" sounds a lot less convincing when you're trying to destroy one's life in what's basically the worst (legal) possible way short of jail time. This "deplatforming" crap is basically exploiting a loophole in modern societies, which have not yet adapted to social media, to effect what's nothing more than taking the law into your own hands.

 

[AsenRG]

Sure but can we agree that the latter is to a degree subjective and ambiguous and the severity can vary while the former is most emphatically not (I know there are legal grey areas, but I think we know rape when we see it).

Yes. Also, one of these isn't a crime by itself, it just makes you a jerk. Certain actions prompted by it might be punishable, of course.

That's exactly why I specified a court should rule "for crimes".

Daniel just summoned a bunch of monsters in one turn alright.

Is it just me, or is the post no longer there?

 

[Bunch]

Please, this thread is not a catch-all for every person in the RPG community that may be problematic for certain people. I reopened it to talk about Zak, his Kickstarter and what people wanted to talk about regarding the allegations against him. Keep it focused.

Doesn't look like it's going to go that way.

 

[Edgewise]

Apart from trying to eject him forever from RPG circles, there's at least one poster on TBP which sent emails to the art galleries with which he works.

First of all, I don't see anything wrong with ejecting him from the role-playing community or notifying art galleries. Why should this be only something that role-players care about? It has almost nothing to do with role-playing.

Second of all, that stuff isn't happening here, barring the occasional errant post - which our dashing and erudite moderators deftly nip in their collective buds.

 

[Arminius]

By the way, I see nothing wrong with the use of the term “shill”, but perhaps I’m not looking at the right dictionaries.

 

[Luca]

First of all, I don't see anything wrong with ejecting him from the role-playing community or notifying art galleries. Why should this be only something that role-players care about? It has almost nothing to do with role-playing.

The point is not which community you're notifying. The point is: if you're explicitly acting to ruin a man's life, acting on what you just *think* might be true makes you an utter jerk at the very least. There's a freaking reason we ask for standard of proof in a court!

I agree with most of what TristramEvans said about this particular event; and if all you're doing is a personal decision to not buy Zak's stuff anymore, then sure, this is all the "proof" you need.

But if you make a point of ruining someone, you're essentially acting as substitute judge, jury and executioner. And if that's the case, you should also be held accountable to the same standards as those of a trial, because you're explicitly trying to have, if not the same effect, a similar one as far as disruption goes. And this is of course before we even tackle the problem of who the hell elected whichever is the current internet hate group as the judges for morally ambigous cases.

Tl, dr: the more significant negative effect you're trying to have on someone's else, the higher the standards on both proof and authority are needed. "Deplatforming" bypasses this, by allowing random internet nobodies to destroy a life based on hearsay, which makes all of this utter shit.

 

[Dumarest]

The usual "I can't send people to jail so I'm not bound to court-of-law levels of proof" sounds a lot less convincing when you're trying to destroy one's life in what's basically the worst (legal) possible way short of jail time. This "deplatforming" crap is basically exploiting a loophole in modern societies, which have not yet adapted to social media, to effect what's nothing more than taking the law into your own hands.

One might point out that this is exactly what Zack himself has recommended and encouraged be done to those with whom he disagrees.

...shill is an incredibly racially-charged word to use...

That's utterly false.

By the way, I see nothing wrong with the use of the term “shill”, but perhaps I’m not looking at the right dictionaries.

That's because he made that part up out of whole cloth.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

The usual "I can't send people to jail so I'm not bound to court-of-law levels of proof" sounds a lot less convincing when you're trying to destroy one's life in what's basically the worst (legal) possible way short of jail time. This "deplatforming" crap is basically exploiting a loophole in modern societies, which have not yet adapted to social media, to effect what's nothing more than taking the law into your own hands.

I think the concept, while extreme, is inevitable in any sensible economy but the targeting tends to be wildly disproportionate. But as Edgewise points out, in this case I would probably find it justifiable. I think it gets really scary when someone starts conflating ideas or more critically perceived ideas with actions, which are measurable.

Is it just me, or is the post no longer there?

Someone here knows the Arcana of Luminescence.

By the way, I see nothing wrong with the use of the term “shill”, but perhaps I’m not looking at the right dictionaries.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill
I fixed it for everyone. Now no one is hurt!

Tl, dr: the more significant negative effect you're trying to have on someone's else, the higher the standards on both proof and authority are needed. "Deplatforming" bypasses this, by allowing random internet nobodies to destroy a life based on hearsay, which makes all of this utter shit.

But perhaps when they do so, the crushing weight of their own moral shortcomings is temporarily alleviated? I think we are now all summoning a bunch of monsters in one turn. I'll try to keep it civil.

One might point out that this is exactly what Zack himself has recommended and encouraged be done to those with whom he disagrees.

It is only just to hold him to his own principles. War to the Knife.

 

[Dumarest]

It is only just to hold him to his own principles.

I knew having no principles would pay off someday!

Edit: and that's enough of this thread for me--I'm sorry I even looked up what was going on out of morbid* curiosity. ¡Adios!

* always go out on a pun!

 

[AsenRG]

One might point out that this is exactly what Zack himself has recommended and encouraged be done to those with whom he disagrees.

As has been posted already, Zach isn't the person I'd look for when it comes to standards of behaviour.
I mean, point me a post in this thread, not made by your eternally serious screen handle (sorry, man), that calls him a chill and nice to talk with dude?

 

[AsenRG]

I knew having no principles would pay off someday!

Edit: and that's enough of this thread for me--I'm sorry I even looked up what was going on out of morbid* curiosity. ¡Adios!

* always go out on a pun!

The second paragraph is what I like best about this post.

And I think it's time for me to follow suit, and return to talking about games, maybe with a thread on the Gor RPG (written by a guy who's on Daniel's list, but who probably doesn't belong in the same category as many others there)!

 

[Baulderstone]

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

John Tarnowski is a problem.
Zak Sabbath is a problem.
Bill Webb is a problem.
James Desborough is a problem.
Sean Patrick Fannon is a problem.
Matthew McFarland is a problem.
CA Suleiman is a problem.

You have the list of problematic people right at hand, yet you just got done telling us you had no clue as someone "ignorant about the industry" about the controversy around Zak until you did some googling the other day, and were clueless when you decided to work with him. That you simply didn't do your "due diligence".

Sorry to be harsh. I wanted to keep this thread to Zak, but you are the one that wants to expand the topic to other people.

As for the word shill, I defer to the origin given for the word by Merriam-Webster:
"Professionals licensed to shill won't necessarily knock you dead, but they may not do you any good either. They might simply be pitchmen employed to extol the wonders of legitimate products. But in the early 1900s, when the first uses of the verb shill were documented, it was more likely that anyone hired to shill you was trying to con you into parting with some cash. Practitioners were called shills (that noun also dates from the early 1900s), and they did everything from faking big wins at casinos (to promote gambling) to pretending to buy tickets (to encourage people to see certain shows). Shill is thought to be a shortened form of shillaber, but etymologists have found no definitive evidence of where that longer term originated. "

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Still hopefully praying for a self-destructive mega-post where Zak tears into all of his former allies like Tyrion Lannister or Conrad Curze at their trials but I'm not optimistic. I'll see y'all here for the post rebuttal analysis.

 

[JamesV]

I think the odds are better than a coin toss that Zak is guilty of what he's accused of doing, which is enough for me to have a seismic change in my opinion of the man.

As a gamer who owns some of his stuff, I'll keep using them when I feel like it. The money has already been spent, the material is still useful, and in most of them there are other people involved who don't deserve to carry the weight of Zak's transgressions, whatever they may be. As a backer for Demon City, the same applies. I am not too interested in two-minutes hate sprees, or purges.

 

[xanther]

... a chill and nice to talk with dude?

I mean yah, when did being anything other than that become a thing. It's like people pride themselves on the opposite of chill and nice.
In all seriousness, I like to take my elfgame shit chill, it's elfgame shit after all even if you can make a living selling it.

 

[Baragei]

But right now, I need to step away for a bit from here

That's one positive note out of this, at least.

 

[TristramEvans]

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

John Tarnowski is a problem.
Zak Sabbath is a problem.
Bill Webb is a problem.
James Desborough is a problem.
Sean Patrick Fannon is a problem.
Matthew McFarland is a problem.
CA Suleiman is a problem.

I refuse to stay silent about harassment, abuse and rape in the OSR community.

I don't like this sort of false equivalence. Being an abusive rapist is not comparable in any metric to attacking people with words online. While I have personal ethical issues with several people on that list (and some I haven't heard of), unless there's evidence that they've done something comparable to the allegations against Zak, they don't belong in this conversation. That's a disservice to the victims to imply what they suffered is in any way equivalent to people being nasty online. If any of them are guilty of abuse or assault I'd like to know, but I'm not going to entertain the idea that "internet shitlord" equals IRL abusive scum.

EDIT: after googling all the names on the list I didn't recognize, I should say that,w/o having done a proper enough investigation to come to a conclusion for myself, it does appear on the surface that several people there are also potentially sexual predators, but I couldn't find any justification for James Desborough (maybe I didn't google hard enough, but I'm pretty good by now at digging up RPG drama), and whatever issues I have with Pundit, I've never heard tell of any sort of IRL drama.

 

[Edgewise]

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

If you feel that strongly about this, I suggest that you make a long post about this on another forum. I'm not trying to run you out, but it should be clear by now that the pub is not the place to drop a half-dozen accusations in a post that is explicitly not for that. And when you do that, you should substantiate those accusations, not just present them as a list of undesirables.

But if you make a point of ruining someone, you're essentially acting as substitute judge, jury and executioner.

And on the other side of the spectrum: don't you think that's a bit overly dramatic? "Executioner"? Whatever someone's motives for passing on damning information like this doesn't affect the fact that (a) recipients of the information are just as capable of investigating deeper and forming their own opinion as anyone up the rumor chain, and (b) if Zak was beating the shit out of his art models or whatever, I'd like to know that. I'd actually be pretty appalled if they tried to keep it all "in-house."

 

[TristramEvans]

I am 99% of the time a kind person. A good person. Always honest, even if the truth hurts. Someone who was raised with Midwestern mentality and politeness. But right now, I need to step away for a bit from here. I’m a bit incensed over the condemnation, and irritated that this “shill shit”, rapacious as it may be on 4chan, would be uttered here by a moderator.

Until this thread I've never heard of "shill" having any potentially racist context, and even if that's the case, I don't believe it was the intention. Lot's of people mistakenly use terms or ideas with unknown or unintended unfortunate histories. Like, say, including stereotypes about gypsies in their games...

 

[Doc Sammy]

Zak Sabbath is endemic of a deep-seated problem in the OSR. I can tell you, as someone who trafficks in publisher circles both publicly and privately, the public has no idea what is going on behind closed doors.

We, as in the tabletop role playing community, aren’t doing a good enough job to call out misogyny. To call out transphobia. To call out online harassment. To deplatform people who are literally committing crimes online and in the streets.

Zak is the worst of all kinds, but John Tarnowski is also endemic of the same issues that pervade the OSR - they have become a community of gatekeepers who use their power and influence to attack, harass and/or abuse.

I don’t mean any offense by this, but don’t tell me how I feel. This has nothing to do with an axe to grind, vendetta or “need to shill” on his forum. And in case you didn’t know, shill is an incredibly racially-charged word to use, particularly when volleyed at any publisher you’d invite to participate in this forum.

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

John Tarnowski is a problem.
Zak Sabbath is a problem.
Bill Webb is a problem.
James Desborough is a problem.
Sean Patrick Fannon is a problem.
Matthew McFarland is a problem.
CA Suleiman is a problem.

I refuse to stay silent about harassment, abuse and rape in the OSR community. And, you know as well as I do that this thread - like all threads - encompass more than its subject matter and tolerated as it becomes broader than its subject line.

I am 99% of the time a kind person. A good person. Always honest, even if the truth hurts. Someone who was raised with Midwestern mentality and politeness. But right now, I need to step away for a bit from here. I’m a bit incensed over the condemnation, and irritated that this “shill shit”, rapacious as it may be on 4chan, would be uttered here by a moderator.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this post in its entirety.

Some people on that list such as Zak and Black Hat Matt are in fact genuinely bad people and are guilty of heinous deeds.

But Pundit and Grim Jim do not belong on that list.

Being an asshole on the internet or having a messed-up sense of humor is NOT the same as actual abuse.

Let's do what the mods say and just focus on Zak.

I think it would be a bad idea for everyone involved if we dragged in forum drama from other sites.

On another note, I am very glad Zak has been banned from this site. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Zak Sabbath is endemic of a deep-seated problem in the OSR. I can tell you, as someone who trafficks in publisher circles both publicly and privately, the public has no idea what is going on behind closed doors.

We, as in the tabletop role playing community, aren’t doing a good enough job to call out misogyny. To call out transphobia. To call out online harassment. To deplatform people who are literally committing crimes online and in the streets.

Zak is the worst of all kinds, but John Tarnowski is also endemic of the same issues that pervade the OSR - they have become a community of gatekeepers who use their power and influence to attack, harass and/or abuse.

I don’t mean any offense by this, but don’t tell me how I feel. This has nothing to do with an axe to grind, vendetta or “need to shill” on his forum. And in case you didn’t know, shill is an incredibly racially-charged word to use, particularly when volleyed at any publisher you’d invite to participate in this forum.

Let me be perfectly clear: these people need to be called to the fore, whether they are harassers, racists, rapists, abusers or misogynists.

John Tarnowski is a problem.
Zak Sabbath is a problem.
Bill Webb is a problem.
James Desborough is a problem.
Sean Patrick Fannon is a problem.
Matthew McFarland is a problem.
CA Suleiman is a problem.

I refuse to stay silent about harassment, abuse and rape in the OSR community. And, you know as well as I do that this thread - like all threads - encompass more than its subject matter and tolerated as it becomes broader than its subject line.

I am 99% of the time a kind person. A good person. Always honest, even if the truth hurts. Someone who was raised with Midwestern mentality and politeness. But right now, I need to step away for a bit from here. I’m a bit incensed over the condemnation, and irritated that this “shill shit”, rapacious as it may be on 4chan, would be uttered here by a moderator.

Daniel, you benefited more from your close ties to Zak than virtually anyone else. And I don't find your claims that you never heard of the earlier statements against him plausible at all (we didn't all believe them, but we all certainly heard about them). Now you are using this horrific moment to place yourself at the helm of a crusade against people who are in a totally different category from what Zak is accused of doing. I think you are doing this to draw attention away from your own proximity to Zak S.

 

[zweihander]

Daniel, you benefited more from your close ties to Zak than virtually anyone else. And I don't find your claims that you never heard of the earlier statements against him plausible at all (we didn't all believe them, but we all certainly heard about them). Now you are using this horrific moment to place yourself at the helm of a crusade against people who are in a totally different category from what Zak is accused of doing. I think you are doing this to draw attention away from your own proximity to Zak S.

Be specific. How did I benefit?

 

[Luca]

And on the other side of the spectrum: don't you think that's a bit overly dramatic? "Executioner"? Whatever someone's motives for passing on damning information like this doesn't affect the fact that (a) recipients of the information are just as capable of investigating deeper and forming their own opinion as anyone up the rumor chain, and (b) if Zak was beating the shit out of his art models or whatever, I'd like to know that. I'd actually be pretty appalled if they tried to keep it all "in-house."

No, I don't think it's dramatic. You're assuming that companies (which, funnily enough, are the real targets of lynch mobs "info campaigns") will act based on actual information, while everything I know tells me they'll act based on what they think will look good to most of their target market. If this was not the case, no one would ever bother with boycott proposals.

I think there's a disconnect between us. You seem to be implying that the main purpose of these campaigns is to spread information around a bad actor to make it harder for him to keep behaving badly. My take is that, at least for a significant portion of the public partaking in this thing, the main purpose is to ruin someone whom they hate or despise. The hate may very well be justified; the rest is not, for reasons I've explained before.

I think I've rambled enough on this, though, so I'll stop hijacking the conversation.

 

[Doc Sammy]

Good Lord, this is not going to end well, is it?

I'm bailing out of this thread before it inevitably gets locked...