# RPG Writer Zak S Accused Of Abusive Behaviour



## Koloth (Feb 11, 2019)

Accused <> guilty.  I seems to me that the person writing the 2nd list linked to has their own agenda and their own politeness issues.  Something rather ironic about accusing someone of using the Internet to harass someone by using the Internet to harass someone by compiling a list of allegations against the person.  

Didn't read the 1st link as I avoid Spybook as much as possible.  

Zak S's long list of RPG credits says something about his skill in the craft.  Until someone convinces a Prosecutor to file charges and a court finds him guilty, this whole thing is basically a Person 1 said, Person 2 said, IMO.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2019)

I'm sad to hear that. 

I'm usually someone with lots of thoughts about everything and long composed essays that have been rolling around in the back of my brain for a long time, but I don't know how to tastefully convey everything I'd want to say here.  

Yeah, lots I could say but nothing I could say that wouldn't be misinterpreted by someone, or which wouldn't turn into an exercise in condemnation by a bunch of people (including myself) who have no right to be involved in or discussing these lives.  I am however sad.  I'm sure that even that is going to be misinterpreted, but I wanted to say it.


----------



## VengerSatanis (Feb 11, 2019)

Koloth said:


> Accused <> guilty.  I seems to me that the person writing the 2nd list linked to has their own agenda and their own politeness issues.  Something rather ironic about accusing someone of using the Internet to harass someone by using the Internet to harass someone by compiling a list of allegations against the person.
> 
> Didn't read the 1st link as I avoid Spybook as much as possible.
> 
> Zak S's long list of RPG credits says something about his skill in the craft.  Until someone convinces a Prosecutor to file charges and a court finds him guilty, this whole thing is basically a Person 1 said, Person 2 said, IMO.




I agree that due process is important.  However, I haven't heard if Zak S. has confirmed or denied any of these allegations yet.  

No one is going to file charges or go to court for being a terrible boyfriend or disrespecting women.  Especially, years later.

Actual harassment is unwarranted and probably illegal (depending on circumstances).  The women accusing Zak S. are revealing their own personal interactions with him.  I don't believe the accusers' motivation was to hurt his career.  If that were the case, then releasing this a month or two ago when he was seeking funding for his Demon City kickstarter would have been a hundred times more advantageous.  

Regardless, some of the allegations have been corroborated by Zak S' former partner, Patrick Stuart, here: http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html

Many in the RPG community/hobby/industry have run afoul of Zak S. (myself included), and I think it's extremely easy for some of us to believe that behavior occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Lastly, to not even read the accuser's public statement before commenting because you "avoid Spybook as much as possible".  Well... that just doesn't sound very smart, Koloth. It leaves your argument, and your credibility in this matter, looking rather flimsy.

*VS*


----------



## mcmillan (Feb 11, 2019)

> Didn't read the 1st link as I avoid Spybook as much as possible.




For anybody else that feels this way, here's the facebook post text (I edited my initial post to put Mandy's content warning outside the block)



			
				Mandy Morbid's facebook post said:
			
		

> Please feel free to share this widely, on
> any platform you have.
> 
> Dear Zak Smith, aka Zak Sabbath
> ...


----------



## hoshisabi (Feb 11, 2019)

This isn't out of nowhere, unfortunately. He's been regularly in the middle of multiple controversies, and Mandy has often been his shield from that criticism. She's posted in his defense, and her medical troubles have often been a humanizing factor for his persona. (But this has been YEARS, he's been embroiled in controversy since before D&D 5e was released, because the "Thank You" to him in the credits was even pulled into the controversy.)

And he's regularly launched similar accusations against other game developers, and basically sent legions of people out to report/harass the folks that he had claimed had harassed him.

He's launched crusades against Evil Hat, Shannon Applecline, Dave Hill, and ... well, a long list of people. His reasons are often "they attacked me first" and I've gone to read the "attacks against him" and often seen very mild criticisms, followed by very reasonable reactions. I really respect Fred Hicks, and when Zak started to attack HIM, I started to believe that I couldn't trust him to be an objective source of truth, that it would be worth reading more before I trusted his opinion.

I once hit +1 on a Google+ comment that read, "I don't understand why story gamers and OSR gamers have a beef, they're both fun games" or something similar. I loved the sentiment, so I just hit +1. Zak privately messaged me to take it back, how dare I stand with someone who supports harassment and that he would out me for having done this. He also asked me to post a public apology, which ... What?!


And ... I had followed Zak Google+ because I liked reading his blog posts, and I didn't know this other person that had commented at all, I had just thought, "good sentiment."


So... Here I am, some no one without a single writing credit to my name, and I have no exposure to any of these people other than words on a monitor. Yet, I somehow managed to become worth "personal attention?" I retracted my +1 and I'm still not sure if I remember if I apologized, if I did it was half-hearted and VERY counterproductive to whatever Zak S intended, because... that was the moment I started to think that perhaps he was as toxic as others claimed he was. (I still followed him, because at this point I was interested in his views but no longer on his opinions about other designers.)


So yes, no proof, just accusations. He may write awesome things, and I liked his blog, but ... I mean, here is the community on google+ he devotes to creating an army of people to report his enemies:
https://plus.google.com/collection/8DQSh


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

FYI - This is certainly the worst we've heard, but not the first. There have been accusations going back year after year after year of harassment including allegedly using sock puppet accounts - and even an entire sock puppet blog - to attack anyone he disagreed with. It's one thing to be skeptical of one or two people speaking out, but dozens and dozens, year after year after year - all alleging the same patterns of abusive behavior over and over again - when there's that much smoke it's irrational to think there's likely no fire. There's just the two links in this article, but take a few minutes with Google and you will find *years* of these sorts of accusations.

Personally, I started blocking him everywhere I could years ago when, on top of other reputable accusations, he had the creepy behavior of often using Mandy's health problems as a shield against any criticism. Now, hearing how her side was so much worse than I thought, it's gut wrenching but, sadly, not surprising.

The RPG community needs to be safe from abuse regardless of whether apparent serial harassers and abusers have a nice list of credits.


----------



## redrick (Feb 11, 2019)

I believe Mandy.

I believe Jennifer.

I believe Hannah.

I believe the many, many others who have come forward before this to tell us about Zak S's patterns of severely abusive behaviors.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

I don’t know Zac but when I watched his last Kickstarter video it was very obvious that there was a cult of personality going on.  He was selling an image that may have seemed cool to me when I was his age: his players were mostly attractive young woman and everyone and everything was highly stylized and doing everything it could to say: “I’m cool, free and creative.”  

The problem with an extremely liberal attitude towards sex is that it wants two things that aren’t compatible: it wants complete sexual  freedom and complete emotional safety. We have norms in sex for a reason. Not many people are emotionally set up to be polyamorous, etc.  It turns out that causal sex is problematic and often hurts people, who would have guessed? And stopping every minute to say “I consent” doesn’t change that.


----------



## Seule (Feb 11, 2019)

Generally, when someone more powerful is accused of abuse by someone less powerful it's usually true. The accuser almost never gains by the accusation and usually loses overall, and victims are aware of this. If it's something that seems very out of character and there's no other sign of problems then maybe I'll wait but that does not seem to be the case here. I'm sad, because I was happy that people like Zak were stretching the boundaries of what the people in the hobby look like, but that doesn't mean that I won't believe the victim(s) here.


----------



## redrick (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> The problem with an extremely liberal attitude towards sex is that it wants two things that aren’t compatible: it wants complete sexual  freedom and complete emotional safety. We have norms in sex for a reason. Not many people are emotionally set up to be polyamorous, etc.  It turns out that causal sex is problematic and often hurts people, who would have guessed? And stopping every minute to say “I consent” doesn’t change that.




This is victim blaming. The problem here wasn't that the women who came forward were polyamorous or sexually liberal. The problem was an abusive person who took advantage of them and a society that protected him. This same sort of abuse happens within the most traditional of marriages.


----------



## timbannock (Feb 11, 2019)

redrick said:


> I believe Mandy.
> 
> I believe Jennifer.
> 
> ...





This. His online conduct suggests all of these allegations are totally in-character.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2019)

VengerSatanis said:


> Regardless, some of the allegations have been corroborated by Zak S' former partner, Patrick Stuart, here: http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html
> 
> Many in the RPG community/hobby/industry have run afoul of Zak S. (myself included), and I think it's extremely easy for some of us to believe that behavior occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt.




Yeah, here's my takeaway:


			
				see link above said:
			
		

> And then there is this other guy. The one that comes out in text form usually. In arguments about nerd stuff. This guy is condescending, aggressive, clever and manipulative. This guy will say anything to win some f-ing internet argument and never, ever, ever admits wrong, backs down or recognises the humanity in his opponents.




There's a *lot* of this online and, frankly, I can understand people having a bad day from time to time - but if someone's online persona is consistently an asshat, if they bait and troll all the time, I'm not going to buy any explanation that "oh, he's only like that online." That's a significant part of *who he is*.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

redrick said:


> This is victim blaming. The problem here wasn't that the women who came forward were polyamorous or sexually liberal. The problem was an abusive person who took advantage of them and a society that protected him. This same sort of abuse happens within the most traditional of marriages.



No it isn’t, you self-righteous jerk. This is a warning to young people, both male and female.  Don’t tell me what I’m doing in my comment,  jerk. Take your self-satisfied, smug, moral posturing somewhere else. 

I said that Zach was making a cult of personality around him. I don’t know him, but it looks like extremely psychopathic behavior.  I don’t blame the victims one bit. So shove your black and white thinking up your you know where.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

redrick said:


> This is victim blaming. The problem here wasn't that the women who came forward were polyamorous or sexually liberal. The problem was an abusive person who took advantage of them and a society that protected him. This same sort of abuse happens within the most traditional of marriages.



You completely put words in my mouth. 

What if it isn’t the victims fault AT ALL.

AND glamorizing casual sex and acting as though it’s typically harmless ALSO hurts people.

WOW, not everything is unidimensional . 

You are a pathetic key-board, virtue warrior.  Look at your own moral character before you judge mine.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 11, 2019)

As cruel and horrid an account as that is, I can’t say anything in there surprises me. As if I needed any further reasons to be done with Lamentations of the Flame Princess.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

This wasn’t news to anyone paying attention. Zap Sabbath has a loooooong and well document history of abusive and trolling online behavior:
https://plus.google.com/114866807979873380367/posts/SbKuHb1thS4

That he is also an abusive partner comes as no surprise.

Okay, for the myriad “accusations =/= conviction” crowd that has already posted or is salivating at the opportunity to rush forward and defend a serial harasser and call the victim of domestic abuse a liar…. THIS ISN’T A COURT OF LAW. We’re not asking that he be sent to prison or suffer any legal penalties. 
Even if this did go to trial, there’s precious few laws for being an a-hole. And the penalty for domestic abuse is usually probation and a fine. 

*We don’t need proof and evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction by a jury of peers to believe someone is a garbage human being. *

If one of your friends came to you and told you another mutual friend had punched them in the junk and stolen their PS4, would you demand proof? 
If a coworker complains to Human Resources that you sexually harassed them on numerous occasions, do you think they need trial worthy evidence to fire your ass? 
And, the big one, if you had two candidates applying for a job and one was less qualified but a good person and the other was award winning but a known spousal abuser, would you really hire the latter?

This isn’t about sending someone to jail. This is about spreading the word that someone in the industry is a anthropomorphic dumpster fire and we should stop giving him accolades and work. That we should find someone else who isn’t a wife beater and hire them instead.


----------



## hoshisabi (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> No it isn’t, you self-righteous jerk. This is a warning to young people, both male and female.  Don’t tell me what I’m doing in my comment,  jerk. Take your self-satisfied, smug, moral posturing somewhere else.
> 
> I said that Zach was making a cult of personality around him. I don’t know him, but it looks like extremely psychopathic behavior.  I don’t blame the victims one bit. So shove your black and white thinking up your you know where.



Wait wait wait guys.

You guys are saying things that aren't conflicting. Calm down and let's not derail the thread.

First off, if you had said "this is the challenge" instead of "this is the problem" then you might not have set people off. It is indeed a challenge for people in these relationships to navigate waters that the rest of us might avoid. But as adults they wish to travel there and we can wish them luck.

BUT. It is irrelevant to this thread. Mandy says "I was young" and part of being young is trying things out, making mistakes, and finding out what you want to keep doing or stop doing.

The problem arises when someone takes advantage of that. And that is the crux of the problem she's talking about.

So while you may not have intended to shift blame onto her, that is a thing that does happen in these discussions and he's not being a "self-righteous jerk" as much as he's trying to avoid the discussion shifting. If that wasn't your intention, then we are all good. No one is blaming Mandy and she is as free as any of us to make decisions about her life, and we can empathize with her problems even when she makes decisions that we wouldn't have.

I mean... Living in Los Angeles. Who does that?!


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> No it isn’t, you self-righteous jerk. This is a warning to young people, both male and female.  Don’t tell me what I’m doing in my comment,  jerk. Take your self-satisfied, smug, moral posturing somewhere else.
> 
> I said that Zach was making a cult of personality around him. I don’t know him, but it looks like extremely psychopathic behavior.  I don’t blame the victims one bit. So shove your black and white thinking up your you know where.






Jeff Slater said:


> You completely put words in my mouth.
> 
> What if it isn’t the victims fault AT ALL.
> 
> ...




Hopefully a moderator will weigh in, but seeing as you only have 3 posts, you might want to review the Forum Rules about name-calling and realize you can disagree without attacking.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Feb 11, 2019)

Koloth said:


> A
> Didn't read the 1st link as I avoid Spybook as much as possible.





You should, it would help make a more informed comment. I 100% believe Mandy.


----------



## redrick (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> No it isn’t, you self-righteous jerk. This is a warning to young people, both male and female.  Don’t tell me what I’m doing in my comment,  jerk. Take your self-satisfied, smug, moral posturing somewhere else.
> 
> I said that Zach was making a cult of personality around him. I don’t know him, but it looks like extremely psychopathic behavior.  I don’t blame the victims one bit. So shove your black and white thinking up your you know where.






Jeff Slater said:


> You completely put words in my mouth.
> 
> What if it isn’t the victims fault AT ALL.
> 
> ...




Hi Jeff, I'm really not judging your character. I don't know you and I have only one instance of your speech to go on. Well, now 3. I'm not trying to be self-righteous; I'm looking to temper the desire to be righteous in these situations instead of being compassionate. I'm speaking only to that one instance of what you said.

Zak is polyamorous. He was (is?) a porn actor. He espouses a sexually liberal viewpoint. The 3 women who came forward are also polyamorous. Some of them may also have been porn actors. By my understanding they also espoused a sexually liberal viewpoint. So when you say, "sexual freedom and emotional safety aren't compatible," you are, intentionally or not, suggesting that the women put themselves in this position. That this would not have happened to them if they had a more traditional sexuality. Maybe that was not your intention. I don't know what's in your heart. But that's what I heard when I read your words.

I feel we should focus not on the incidentals of Zak's, Mandy's, Jennifer's, Hannah's sexuality, but solely on Zak's toxic behavior. That, and that alone, is what caused this pain. We won't stop people like Zak by warning our youth away from sexual promiscuity. But maybe we can stop people like Zak by working to see, target and prevent abusive behavior. And Zak's abusive behavior has been on display for a very long time.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

At the risk of calling someone out, I would ask that  @_*Morrus*_ consider rescinding the ENnies awarded to Zak Sabbath. 
They are mentioned prominently on Zak’s Wikipedia page, and giving him accolades is implicitly supporting his behaviour,


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

hoshisabi said:


> Wait wait wait guys.
> 
> You guys are saying things that aren't conflicting. Calm down and let's not derail the thread.
> 
> ...



He isolated and interpreted my words in order to try to make them say something reprehensible. He didn’t ask me what my comment meant; he told me what it meant. He was not acting in good-faith and I’m not going to let someone portray me as something I’m not.


----------



## monsmord (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> At the risk of calling someone out, I would ask that  @_*Morrus*_ consider rescinding the ENnies awarded to Zak Sabbath.
> They are mentioned prominently on Zak’s Wikipedia page, and giving him accolades as implicitly supporting his behaviour,




I concur, especially given his publicly-recognized treatment of industry figures and vocal gamers.  Whatever the quality of his work, there are many talented folks doing great stuff and who aren't poisonous to the hobby.  Even if retraction isn't pragmatic, I hope a ban on future consideration of products with his name in the credits will be on the table.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2019)

And yeah, this thread is going exactly where I expected it would go when I decided there was nothing more to say than, "I'm sad."


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Considering that Mike Mearls's response to criticisms about Zak Smith awhile back was to summarily dismiss them, defend him, and then forward those emails to Zak Smith (who has been known for target harassing critics), I will be curious to hear anything from Mike Mearls about this now. Otherwise this will be a pretty big black mark on his record.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

redrick said:


> Hi Jeff, I'm really not judging your character. I don't know you and I have only one instance of your speech to go on. Well, now 3. I'm not trying to be self-righteous; I'm looking to temper the desire to be righteous in these situations instead of being compassionate. I'm speaking only to that one instance of what you said.
> 
> Zak is polyamorous. He was (is?) a porn actor. He espouses a sexually liberal viewpoint. The 3 women who came forward are also polyamorous. Some of them may also have been porn actors. By my understanding they also espoused a sexually liberal viewpoint. So when you say, "sexual freedom and emotional safety aren't compatible," you are, intentionally or not, suggesting that the women put themselves in this position. That this would not have happened to them if they had a more traditional sexuality. Maybe that was not your intention. I don't know what's in your heart. But that's what I heard when I read your words.
> 
> I feel we should focus not on the incidentals of Zak's, Mandy's, Jennifer's, Hannah's sexuality, but solely on Zak's toxic behavior. That, and that alone, is what caused this pain. We won't stop people like Zak by warning our youth away from sexual promiscuity. But maybe we can stop people like Zak by working to see, target and prevent abusive behavior. And Zak's abusive behavior has been on display for a very long time.



Fair enough, but it wasn’t a charitable reading on your part. 

I clearly said that he had developed a cult of personality around him.  My point was, given this context, was not to blame the victims but to warn young people. 

In the victims’ accounts they say he played the ultra-liberal in order to manipulated them, so my point was relevant.

I agree that it could be misconstrued. But I would ask that you think about communicating with someone a little more before you decide they are saying something reprehensible, and portray them that way. 
And, I’ll be more careful in my speech.

I agree, that it’s important to show solidarity and not get off in to tangential discussions.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Considering that Mike Mearls's response to criticisms about Zak Smith awhile back was to summarily dismiss them, defend him, and then forward those emails to Zak Smith (who has been known for target harassing critics), I will be curious to hear anything from Mike Mearls about this now. Otherwise this will be a pretty big black mark on his record.




Plus, since they already include errata in future printings of the PHB, maybe we should ask WotC to consider removing his name from the credits as well going forward.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> Plus, since they already include errata in future printings of the PHB, maybe we should ask WotC to consider removing his name from the credits as well going forward.




I'm not sure I agree with that without removing the things he had influence on. Credit where credit is due, regardless of the odiousness of the individual who came up with it, should be something we should hold all corporations to.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> You are a pathetic key-board, virtue warrior.  Look at your own moral character before you judge mine.




*You are done.  Don't post in this thread again.*

For everyone else, let me remind you of the Rules.  Including:
*
Keep it inclusive:* EN World is an inclusive community, and we encourage and welcome all people here. To that end, we strive to make it a welcoming place where nobody feels alienated because of who they are. You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, _use pejorative terms such as "social justice warrior" or "virtue signalling" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with_, or post any message which is discriminatory towards those who differ to you in terms of skin colour, gender, gender identification, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or any other personal attribute. We do not subscribe to the argument that tolerance means that we need to tolerate intolerance or that inclusivity means that we need to include non-inclusiveness.


----------



## Chaderick (Feb 11, 2019)

Disregard.


----------



## redrick (Feb 11, 2019)

There are lots of meaningful and needed conversations happening on indie RPG Twitter. People who had already been hurt by and come forward about Zak, people who saw the way the industry protected him, and, in many cases, pushed them to the side. I recommend giving it a read. This is painful, hurtful stuff for a lot of people.

The Gauntlet, an online gaming community that also produces a number of podcasts, including an OSR podcast called Fear of a Black Dragon, posted this in response to the latest news about Zak S, and it is the kind of response I'd like to see elsewhere:

https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *You are done.  Don't post in this thread again. *



Post


----------



## monsmord (Feb 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that without removing the things he had influence on. Credit where credit is due, regardless of the odiousness of the individual who came up with it, should be something we should hold all corporations to.




I was totally behind Kenmarable's post, but ya know, you're right.  If the material is to be included, it should be appropriately accredited.  Here, the what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it rule would determine whether it's a product I'd support.  Not sure how I'd be able to verify that without directing querying the publisher -- and I might, at this point -- but if a new product cites him, or if an updated product doesn't specify and won't clarify why his name is included, I'd give it a pass just to be sure.

EDIT: I just read the link redrick provided (https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/th...ement-on-zak-s).  Yes, this.  I hope all gaming communities, events, and forums adopt such a policy.  Next - online and FLGS sales not carrying his products.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> No it isn’t, you self-righteous jerk. This is a warning to young people, both male and female.  Don’t tell me what I’m doing in my comment,  jerk. Take your self-satisfied, smug, moral posturing somewhere else.
> 
> I said that Zach was making a cult of personality around him. I don’t know him, but it looks like extremely psychopathic behavior.  I don’t blame the victims one bit. So shove your black and white thinking up your you know where.




Jeff, what you wrote could be viewed as victim blaming, despite it not being your intent.  That is an issue with interaction that is limited by the medium we are using here.  I had similar thoughts when I read your post, but I assumed that was not your intent.  Not everyone makes the same assumptions, that is OK and normal.  When someone questions your intentions I find it is best to politely clarify and move on.

EDIT:  I should have read the whole thread first.  I see you two had a more reasoned interaction letter on, but your "post" comment seem to undermine it a bit.  Life on the internet I guess


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that without removing the things he had influence on. Credit where credit is due, regardless of the odiousness of the individual who came up with it, should be something we should hold all corporations to.




Yeah, I think this would be a step too far. That said, I will add my voice to the calls to at least _consider_ rescinding his ENnies, at least after the dust starts to clear. If these accusations are true, and there is honestly every reason to believe they are (multiple accusers, greater risk to the accusers, accusers were once among his most significant defenders, there is absolutely nothing out of character regarding their stories), then I would hope we would have that conversation. 

On the one hand, who an organization chooses to award reflects, in some ways, the values of the organization that presents them. Rescinding past awards would neither be unprecedented nor unwarranted (considering the behavior in question was ongoing at the time the awards were given). On the other hand, the ENnies are awarded based on a public fan vote, and unilaterally overturning such a thing can be troubling, even for the best of reasons. One would hope after such credible accusations the fan community writ large would have little trouble turning their backs on him. One could also consider, given recent history, such idealism to border on laughably and depressingly naive.

That said, it's refreshing to see such little "b-b-but court of law!" nonsense cluttering this thread.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Jeff, what you wrote could be viewed as victim blaming, despite it not being your intent.  That is an issue with interaction that is limited by the medium we are using here.  I had similar thoughts when I read your post, but I assumed that was not your intent.  Not everyone makes the same assumptions, that is OK and normal.  When someone questions your intentions I find it is best to politely clarify and move on.



Fair enough, but it’s a bit difficult to stay level headed when something you said is being re-contextulized to say something deplorable.  Ones initial instinct is to defend oneself. I’ll make sure to express my ideas more precisely and respond with a cooler head in the future.

Redrick and I spoke and I think we both know where we were each coming from and know that neither of us intended harm or were acting in bad faith.


----------



## gyor (Feb 11, 2019)

Seule said:


> Generally, when someone more powerful is accused of abuse by someone less powerful it's usually true. The accuser almost never gains by the accusation and usually loses overall, and victims are aware of this. If it's something that seems very out of character and there's no other sign of problems then maybe I'll wait but that does not seem to be the case here. I'm sad, because I was happy that people like Zak were stretching the boundaries of what the people in the hobby look like, but that doesn't mean that I won't believe the victim(s) here.




 Based on what evidence do you make that claim?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

gyor said:


> Based on what evidence do you make that claim?



Based upon some of your past posts on similar topics, I am skeptical that you are asking this question in good faith and it is challenging for me to give you the benefit of the doubt now. But if you were asking this in good faith, and even if you are not, then this question seems unwise since it so readily veers the topic away from the issue at hand in the thread.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 11, 2019)

Zak ripped into to me online, and a IL'd him long ago; nevertheless I feel bad for Mandy, she is disabled and shouldn't have to go through this.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 11, 2019)

Not sure what happened, but what I clicked reply on wasn't what got quoted, and I didn't notice until I'd submited the post.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> At the risk of calling someone out, I would ask that  [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] consider rescinding the ENnies awarded to Zak Sabbath.
> They are mentioned prominently on Zak’s Wikipedia page, and giving him accolades as implicitly supporting his behaviour,




You are joking, right?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> You are joking, right?



Why not? It is not like such things are without precedent outside of gaming.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> You are joking, right?




Why would he be joking?


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> You are joking, right?



No. 

If someone demonstrates they are an unworthy recipient of an honour or award, it should be rescinded. To do otherwise tarnishes the award. 

When Zak first won in 2015 there was a walk out in response/protest. And the ENnies “responded” by awarding Zak a second time in 2016. 

The ENnies have disqualified products for less.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> No.
> 
> If someone demonstrates they are an unworthy recipient of an honour or award, it should be rescinded. To do otherwise tarnishes the award.
> 
> ...




Because the Ennies are a product award not a political award.

That would be a huge mistake to make.


----------



## cmad1977 (Feb 11, 2019)

gyor said:


> Based on what evidence do you make that claim?




This can’t be an actual question from a thinking person.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why would he be joking?




Because it seems like it is a farcical statement to make.


----------



## redrick (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Because the Ennies are a product award not a political award.
> 
> That would be a huge mistake to make.




Abuse is not political. In fact, if we've seen anything over the lifetime of the #MeToo movement, it's that abuse cuts across all political boundaries and that every community can house predators.

--EDIT--
For some reason, some other things got quoted in that were unintentional.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Because the Ennies are a product award not a political award.
> 
> That would be a huge mistake to make.



How is this political?!?

What political party is pro-spousal abuse?
Which governmental entity supports emotional and physical abuse?


----------



## innerdude (Feb 11, 2019)

I can only echo the sentiment of [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], which is that absolutely everything surrounding this fills me with melancholic sadness.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

I would like to say to the victims of this abuse that I support them and believe them. I’m sorry that you had to suffer what you did and I know that these things can effect one for life. I was sexually abused as a child and it is a very serious matter and it damages people severely and this person cannot be permitted to continue his abuse and must be held to account. 

I know that many will think that one should only make a judgment about this if he has been found guilty by a court of law, and I’m not saying that this position has no merit—it is wise to be cautious in these matters; however, things are complex and many factors have to be considered.  Having looked into past accusations, the number of victims willing to come forward and the number of folk collaborating them, as well as those testifying to his tactics and response to accusations, and continuing his abusive  behavior in spite of all this—it is quite evident that he is an abusive and manipulative person to say the least. If even half of the reported behaviors are accurate; he is very likely a psychopathic individual who manipulates, uses gaslighting and “grooming” behavior on his victims. It is very, very reasonable to side with the preponderance of evidence and testimony and withdraw support and do everything we can to stop him, and support those that were abused (including giving them enough support, if laws were broken,  that they feel confident that people will have their backs if they testify against him, and that there won’t be a backlash).  

Now that I’ve addressed what I perceive to be the main issue: I have a related question. If people think that it will derail the conversation and detract from focusing on the main issue let me know and I will make sure to strike it from my comment. The question has to do with how we as a community respond to instances of abuse by creators. 

What is the proper response when someone has a long documented history of malevolent, unapologetic, abusive behavior, but is also viewed as talented by some? How should we as a community respond to this? 

I did not know the author had this background, and being an obsessive collector of all things with regard to tabletop RPGs, I had purchased one of his products in the past. It goes without saying that I don’t want to support this person financially in the future. 

What would the proper response be for those that would like to use his work, but refuse to support him? 

Would it be to get a share a copy from a friend who already owns the product and tell that friend why you are boycotting the authors products?   

Does one who likes his work—I personally have not read the copy I purchased, so I don’t know whether or not I find him talented—stop using his work altogether (and also condemn his behavior, support his victims and any legal action taken due to any laws he may have broken), OR does one do this and ALSO stop using his work entirely (even if one doesn’t contribute to him financially in doing so)? 

I know that this is a individual matter, but what do the majority of people consider to be the most reasonable and responsible action to take?  Thanks.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> What would the proper response be for those that would like to use his work, but refuse to support him?
> 
> Would it be to get a share a copy from a friend who already owns the product and tell that friend why you are boycotting the authors products?
> 
> ...




The Gauntlet article posted upthread has a pretty excellent answer to this concern:

"We understand that many people, some of our organizers and members alike, feel that Zak has created some compelling game content. Unfortunately, he’s a toxic, abusive person and we should not be giving him aid and comfort with our dollars. There are plenty of OSR publishers out there who are making amazing content that is equal to or surpasses Zak’s work, and who are not abusers. We have listed a few below and you can find even more in our Fear of a Black Dragon podcast feed.

The Melsonian Arts Council 
The Hydra Cooperative
Tuesday Knight Games "


----------



## timbannock (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> Does one who likes his work—I personally have not read the copy I purchased, so I don’t know whether or not I find him talented—stop using his work altogether (and also condemn his behavior, support his victims and any legal action taken due to any laws he may have broken), OR does one do this and ALSO stop using his work entirely (even if one doesn’t contribute to him financially in doing so)?
> 
> I know that this is a individual matter, but what do the majority of people consider to be the most reasonable and responsible action to take?  Thanks.




The only thing I've supported of his (that I know of) is Vornheim, and I added the pertinent pages that I used often in my urbancrawl games to my personal GM's Binder. I will definitely remove them, stop using anything related to them and develop my own tools or find other ones to use. I will also be removing anything I can find that I've ever posted anywhere that promotes or recommends them.

My reasoning is much as the Gauntlet's (above): he might have put out neat stuff. He might have said useful things. But there's so many others who have done the same and aren't garbage people. I can spend 10 minutes of my time removing his crap from my toolbox and another 15-20 finding substitutions.

That's my stance, at least.


----------



## Eltab (Feb 11, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I'm usually someone with lots of thoughts about everything and long composed essays that have been rolling around in the back of my brain for a long time, but I don't know how to tastefully convey everything I'd want to say here.



a very public +1
I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> The Gauntlet article posted upthread has a pretty excellent answer to this concern:
> 
> "We understand that many people, some of our organizers and members alike, feel that Zak has created some compelling game content. Unfortunately, he’s a toxic, abusive person and we should not be giving him aid and comfort with our dollars. There are plenty of OSR publishers out there who are making amazing content that is equal to or surpasses Zak’s work, and who are not abusers. We have listed a few below and you can find even more in our Fear of a Black Dragon podcast feed.
> 
> ...



I’ve very much agree and said that at a minimum we should not support him financially and should condemn his actions. 

My question was whether or not—in addition to not contributing to him financially and condemning his actions—we should stop using the products he has, in the past, created? For example, should someone who likes his work, but not him, use a friend’s borrowed copy of his work to run a dungeon, or should they stop using his past work, even if they don’t contribute to him financially.

I hope I made my question clear. What do you think?


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

timbannock said:


> The only thing I've supported of his (that I know of) is Vornheim, and I added the pertinent pages that I used often in my urbancrawl games to my personal GM's Binder. I will definitely remove them, stop using anything related to them and develop my own tools or find other ones to use. I will also be removing anything I can find that I've ever posted anywhere that promotes or recommends them.
> 
> My reasoning is much as the Gauntlet's (above): he might have put out neat stuff. He might have said useful things. But there's so many others who have done the same and aren't garbage people. I can spend 10 minutes of my time removing his crap from my toolbox and another 15-20 finding substitutions.
> 
> That's my stance, at least.



Thanks for your detailed and well thought out answer.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 11, 2019)

There's a line I saw in Reddit that struck me: "downplaying crummy things that our favorite creators have done is how Zak has survived in the industry so long."

I'm still considering what to do with the Zak S stuff I've got on my shelves. I don't know that I can use it anymore, without feeling like whatever I create using it is tainted.

As for his Ennies, he wouldn’t be the first person to have been stripped of an award for stuff he’s done. Far larger awards have been taken away from people for their words and actions.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> How is this political?!?
> 
> What political party is pro-spousal abuse?
> Which governmental entity supports emotional and physical abuse?




Its political because you are trying to turn the award into a popularity contest. Maybe we could name it the Jester David party for appropriate Ennie award presentation.  The award is not given to the product that wins the most votes, it is given to the best product as decided by the Judges.

And it is in my opinion harrassment speech for which you should be kicked from this thread.  You and your supporters should be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Nevermind.


----------



## GMless (Feb 11, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> There's a line I saw in Reddit that struck me: "downplaying crummy things that our favorite creators have done is how Zak has survived in the industry so long."
> 
> I'm still considering what to do with the Zak S stuff I've got on my shelves. I don't know that I can use it anymore, without feeling like whatever I create using it is tainted.
> 
> As for his Ennies, he wouldn’t be the first person to have been stripped of an award for stuff he’s done. Far larger awards have been taken away from people for their words and actions.



Thanks for your detailed answer. I understand how you feel; it’s hard for me to get enjoyment out of a creators work if they have done something very evil, especially if they are unrepentant. I don’t think it’s easy to separate it.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Its political because you are trying to turn the award into a popularity contest. Maybe we could name it the Jester David party for appropriate Ennie award presentation.  The award is not given to the product that wins the most votes, it is given to the best product as decided by the Judges.
> 
> And it is in my opinion harrassment speech for which you should be kicked from this thread.  You and your supporters should be ashamed of yourselves.




Considering it was a fan vote, it already *was* a popularity contest. The panel of judges only gets it to the nomination stage our of all submitted work. And nobody believes your gaslighting.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Considering it was a fan vote, it already *was* a popularity contest. The panel of judges only gets it to the nomination stage our of all submitted work. And nobody believes your gaslighting.




So it is not harrassment when *you* like what they are saying?


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Its political because you are trying to turn the award into a popularity contest. Maybe we could name it the Jester David party for appropriate Ennie award presentation.  The award is not given to the product that wins the most votes, it is given to the best product as decided by the Judges.
> 
> And it is in my opinion harrassment speech for which you should be kicked from this thread.  You and your supporters should be ashamed of yourselves.




I don't think any of this is even remotely true. Not even a little bit.

1) The ENnies _are_, in a way, a popularity contest. Sure the nominees are ultimately chosen by the Judges, but the winners are voted in by fans. If the winners were picked by the Judges, I think it would be _much easier_ to rescind the awards, because the Judges can decide the past winner's actions and behaviors no longer (or in this case, never did) represent the ideals that this organization and these awards stand for. I think, anyway, that overriding a fan vote is a considerably trickier process (though not altogether unwarranted).
2) There is no way any of this consists of harassment. Sure he @'ed Morrus but that's a far leap from harassment. Everything else has been comments about somebody's behavior within the public record (behavior reported by and within a thread created by Morrus, for what it's worth, which I think in this case is a lot) and not really directed at anyone specifically. You kind of need a target for something to qualify as harassment.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> So it is not harrassment when *you* like what they are saying?




It's not harassment because literally nobody is being harassed.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I don't think any of this is even remotely true. Not even a little bit.
> 
> 1) The ENnies _are_, in a way, a popularity contest. Sure the nominees are ultimately chosen by the Judges, but the winners are voted in by fans. If the winners were picked by the Judges, I think it would be _much easier_ to rescind the awards, because the Judges can decide the past winner's actions and behaviors no longer (or in this case, never did) represent the ideals that this organization and these awards stand for. I think, anyway, that overriding a fan vote is a considerably trickier process (though not altogether unwarranted).
> 2) There is no way any of this consists of harassment. Sure he @'ed Morrus but that's a far leap from harassment. Everything else has been comments about somebody's behavior within the public record (behavior reported by and within a thread created by Morrus, for what it's worth, which I think in this case is a lot) and not really directed at anyone specifically. You kind of need a target for something to qualify as harassment.




How is calling for someones award to be retroactively stripped from them not harrassment?


----------



## dwayne (Feb 11, 2019)

I choose not to judge ether way, if it goes to court and a then the judge will decide that's what they are for. As with all things the issues are colored by the glasses that are worn by all looking at the issue. We each bring our own bias to everything and that is why I do not take a side in this, let a more qualified person like a judge do it.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It's not harassment because literally nobody is being harassed.




Is your frame so tight that you think "literally" nobody is being targeted.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Its political because you are trying to turn the award into a popularity contest.



You mean the award handed out based on who receives the most public votes? 



Shasarak said:


> The award is not given to the product that wins the most votes, it is given to the best product as decided by the Judges.



Ummm… no. That's not how the ENnies work. 
Have you never voted on them??

Judges choose which product make the short list for the public vote, pulled from the list of submitted products. The public then votes, ranking their choices, which determine who recieves the gold and who recieves the silver. 

And something like knowing one of the writers of a product might easily have swayed them not to include a product for the list for the public vote. 



Shasarak said:


> And it is in my opinion harrassment speech for which you should be kicked from this thread.  You and your supporters should be ashamed of yourselves.



Then you should stop engaging, report my post, and let the moderators decide. 

But let me take another crack at explaining this:
Okay, the #MeToo movement is very topical and is a hot button issue. Which makes something like this needlessly controversial. So let's try separating that issue from Zak and looking at it again.

Imagine if Zak S had instead caused regular fights at a convention and beaten the tar out of multiple convention goers? 
Would that be someone who should be lauded with an industry award? 
Should he keep the award and continue to be able to use it as a reference to get future work? 

What if instead he was seen at several white power rallies wearing a white hood and proudly showing off Klu Klux Klan tattoos?
Should he retain an award given to him?
Should he be allowed to continue advertising his products as "ENnie award winning" and potentially making money off their sale? 

Because you're not just giving an award to the product, to the art, but to the artist. You're recognising them over other artists. He received Gold and Silver ENnies over other highly popular products that weren't created by a wife beater and online troll. You're costing those products sales and those artists work. 

So the award should be rescinded. Ideally, it should retroactively be awarded to the next runner up.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Because it seems like it is a farcical statement to make.




It was a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make. 



Jeff Slater said:


> I know that this is a individual matter, but what do the majority of people consider to be the most reasonable and responsible action to take?  Thanks.




Even the fact that he consulted on the PHB has bothered me for a while. Luckily I've never purchased anything he's made himself, but if I had, I daresay I'd throw it in the trash and move on. I also don't use any of the Frog God Games products I acquired in the course of getting my hands on a ton of Kobold Press products via humble bundle, knowing their reluctance to properly address a harasser in their company. 



Shasarak said:


> Its political because you are trying to turn the award into a popularity contest. Maybe we could name it the Jester David party for appropriate Ennie award presentation.  The award is not given to the product that wins the most votes, it is given to the best product as decided by the Judges.
> 
> And it is in my opinion harrassment speech for which you should be kicked from this thread.  You and your supporters should be ashamed of yourselves.




Suggestion that an accolade be revoked from a rapist isn't harassment. What you're doing here is manipulative behavior, and you need to stop.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> Post





Someone just earned themselves a week-long vacation from the site.

Anyone else who wants to test the limits of the rules, or whether we mean it when we ask you to walk away, or cool off, should not expect much patience.  Please be better than that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> How is calling for someones award to be retroactively stripped from them not harrassment?




And now I have to wonder if _you're_ joking.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> How is calling for someones award to be retroactively stripped from them not harrassment?



Because "consequences" and "harassment" aren't synonyms in the context.

Would the police be "harassing" Zak S for arresting him for domestic abuse after the fact?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2019)

Jeff Slater said:


> I know that this is a individual matter, but what do the majority of people consider to be the most reasonable and responsible action to take?  Thanks.




I feel I'm always in the minority in every opinion.  But, I personally think that it is dangerous to conflate a person's public and private life too much.

I've never approved of Zak S's lifestyle, but I never considered boycotting him because his private affairs weren't something I approved of.  To do that would have felt a bit to 17th century to me, and it tended work too well back then either.  I don't approve of shunning.  I don't think there needs to be any organized campaign, or that we need to put a letter upon his head.  I don't really think there is a right or wrong in buying one of his Pdf's, for example.  I can't see how it does anyone any good either way.  Not publically not buy one is a show of virtue, and I don't approve of shows of virtue.  I certainly don't approve of redacting the historical record, or rescinding awards for artistic merit that were never endorsements of a person's moral character or personal behavior in the first place.

I think each person should do what they think is right.  If you don't feel you can buy stuff from a person who is that troubled and that abusive of others, then don't.  If you feel that it is a bit ridiculous to think that buying something from someone constitutes endorsement of their personal life, then I'm also Ok with that.  I'm not sure I'd ever judge anyone by who they brought a product from.  One would hope that a person who decides not to buy something from a person whose behavior they can't approve, makes every effort to be pure and righteous in all their behavior that really matters.  One would hope that a person who decides that this doesn't matter, is not a person who simply finds morally convenient excuses to do what they want whenever they want to do it.  But, those vices - if they are present - are the actual things of substance to me, and not whether they bought a product.

Zak S is I think an immensely talented person, who is I think obviously immensely troubled, and sadly despite the best of my hopes otherwise, seems to have behaved terribly toward the people in his life.  I never boycotted him because he was a porn star.  I won't boycott him because he's an abusive jerk.  I don' t feel the need to punish anyone, and I don't feel the need for anyone's approval.

But, as a point of fact, I've never bought anything from him either.   And the reason for that is pretty simple.  Regardless of who made it, the actual content of the work he produced never appealed to me.  It was dark, violent, nihilistic and obviously came from a place of pain, violence, and brokenness that in your face wore those things as a badge of honor and defiance.  It crossed a line for me.  And well, I just couldn't make that relate to my life or the stories I wanted to tell.   I came really close a couple of times, only to watch a video review from some of the work's biggest fans and to be completely turned off by the sort of things that they praised about it.  It's just not to my taste.

I'm sad that the life fit the stereotype, and that the art did come from demons unexorcised.  I'm sad that someone as talented as he is, finds himself only breaking things and not creating things.  I'm sad that dark and nihilistic as it is, the creative work he produced may be the one good thing of worth he's doing with his life.  I am sad at all the pain and waste and brokenness.  And I'm sad that most responses are likely to be voyeurism, gossiping, moral preening, wrath and outrage, and nothing that will ever do anyone any good.  I am sad that I can't make anything better.  I am sad I can't wash the wounds.  I am sad that whatever I say will just goad someone on.  I'm sad even that I care when none of my caring matters.

I'm not sad that I was skeptical of turning Zak into a celebrity - skepticism that no matter how mild I made it occasionally made people upset.  There would be less need for people to publically walk back what they did or said before if they'd simply bought, or not bought, what he was selling and left it at that.   Now we are going to make a big community wide issue of it?  Count me out.  I walked the other way the community was going when he became a star.  I'll probably walk the other way they are walking now.

UPDATE: Please don't respond to this point if you are thinking to.  My better judgment was almost certainly to stay silent, but grief has a way of boiling out and I made the mistake of reading further in the thread.  The last thing I want is an excuse to drag myself to an argument.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Because "consequences" and "harassment" aren't synonyms in the context.
> 
> Would the police be "harassing" Zak S for arresting him for domestic abuse after the fact?



Was the award for his behaviour, or his work?
If it's not for his behaviour, why should it be stripped because of it?

The writer of the core Cthulhu Mythos was a rampant racist and xenophobe, but that doesn't affect the merit of his work.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Is your frame so tight that you think "literally" nobody is being targeted.





Don't make it personal, or you will be asked to leave the thread.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 11, 2019)

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]

please don't compare private crimes with Nazism.
abusing multiple people is disgusting, no doubt about it.
but here there are people whose relatives were in concentration camps, and private crimes are not even far comparable with Nazi approach to evilness.
please use something else for examples.
thanks.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> How is calling for someones award to be retroactively stripped from them not harrassment?






Shasarak said:


> Is your frame so tight that you think "literally" nobody is being targeted.




I didn't write the definition. Nobody here is getting in Zak S's face, DMing him, belittling or demeaning him directly. That's what harassment is. Simply speaking unkindly about a public figure is not harassment. 

Plenty of figures have had rewards/awards rescinded for very similar types of behavior. This is not some out-of-nowhere unprecedented attack. 

I'm really not sure where the indignation and hostility to the idea is even coming from.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> How is calling for someones award to be retroactively stripped from them not harrassment?




Zak S is not being pressured or bullied. He is being *judged* for the crap he's pulled and that's very different, and given the weight of the accusations leveled against him, appropriate.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Was the award for his behaviour, or his work?
> If it's not for his behaviour, why should it be stripped because of it?



Honestly, it's a combination of both. The ENnies certainly have a popularity aspect to them, given they are a fan vote. Someone can create something with very little actual creative merit, creativity, or technical skill, but it can still win if enough people like it (or don't like the products it's running against. Also see: Sad Puppies.)

Do you think that if this had all been known about Zak S beforehand (well, to be fair, if certain people took to heart the things so many other people already accepted about him) that his products would have even been accepted as a viable voting option?

Awards should also reflect more than the work. They should stand for the person receiving them being a reflection of the community and fans for which they are being made. To continue to reward their participation in said community despite what we know about them is to normalize their behaviour.

In other words: rapists shouldn't get to keep their rewards.



> The writer of the core Cthulhu Mythos was a rampant racist and xenophobe, but that doesn't affect the merit of his work.



You may want to do more research into this topic before you use HP Lovecraft as an example for your point. I suggest you start with the World Fantasy Award.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]
> 
> please don't compare private crimes with Nazism.
> abusing multiple people is disgusting, no doubt about it.
> ...



If you can suggest a comparable (but non-criminal*) but equally unacceptable behaviour I will _happily_ edit my post. 

* Not that what the Nazis did wasn’t criminal. But belonging to a neonazi organization and marching isn’t in itself illegal.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Was the award for his behaviour, or his work?
> If it's not for his behaviour, why should it be stripped because of it?
> 
> The writer of the core Cthulhu Mythos was a rampant racist and xenophobe, but that doesn't affect the merit of his work.



The difference is, Zak S can continue to benefit from receiving the reward through future work and sales of the products that can be advertised as “ENnie award winning”.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Was the award for his behaviour, or his work?
> If it's not for his behaviour, why should it be stripped because of it?
> 
> The writer of the core Cthulhu Mythos was a rampant racist and xenophobe, but that doesn't affect the merit of his work.




He's also dead as a doornail and can't materially benefit from his work, so less compelling reason to sanction them based on his personal beliefs. If he were alive and still writing, then I'd see a pretty good argument to deny him the benefit of my support no matter how good his work was.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

I will respect wishes of remaining personally left out of any conversation moving forward, but there are some points that kind of need to be addressed here.

Primarily, what deeply saddens and frustrates me the most about these sorts of dialogues is the amount of sympathy and pity that inevitably flows to the perpetrators of these actions. That it's a shame that being called out for toxic, violent behavior will have a negative impact on their creative works and endeavors; and woe is it to them that they've had to struggle so hard with their demons, etc. etc.

Look, I'm the last person who thinks anybody should be thrown into a cell and have the key thrown away. I'm a big believer that people are actually capable of change, which isn't a popular view. But there's a place and a time to talk about an abusive person's potential and rehabilitation, and the immediate aftermath of such a story breaking is not it.

Especially when it comes without literally a single word of sympathy, empathy or respect for the women he harmed and must continue to live with the consequences of that harm.

I'm sad for Mandy, for Jennifer, and for Hannah. To have suffered for so long at their abusers' hands and still feel to be obligated to defend their abuser is a special kind of hell that I would wish nobody would ever have to go through. Any consequences Zak Smith suffers for his abuse, whether financially, socially or even legally (the latter of which is highly unlikely), will be too little compared to the pain that he has wrought.

I have zero respect for those that for some reason feel the need, in this moment, to express sympathy for the man.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> If you can suggest a comparable (but non-criminal*) but equally unacceptable behaviour I will _happily_ edit my post.
> 
> * Not that what the Nazis did wasn’t criminal. But belonging to a neonazi organization and marching isn’t in itself illegal.




I'm not so cool at writing in English, sorry, especially when I have to find very complex examples about very complex topics.

anyway, for me the first example (the fighting man) was sufficient to understand.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> You may want to do more research into this topic before you use HP Lovecraft as an example for your point. I suggest you start with the World Fantasy Award.



Okay, let me rephrase: It _shouldn't_ affect the merit of his work.

I don't bring Nazis into things lightly, but they basically a universally accepted evil, and yet that doesn't demerit their work on genetics, no matter how gruesome their methods of research.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

billd91 said:


> He's also dead as a doornail and can't materially benefit from his work, so less compelling reason to sanction them based on his personal beliefs. If he were alive and still writing, then I'd see a pretty good argument to deny him the benefit of my support no matter how good his work was.



But the entirety od his work was either based on, or a proxy for, his racism and xenophobia. So in effect they _are_ his personal beliefs.


----------



## VengerSatanis (Feb 11, 2019)

Please, let's not derail this thread with further discussion on the merits and flaws of either H.P. Lovecraft or the Cthulhu Mythos. I'm sure there's another thread in this forum that already goes into a 100+ pages of pros, cons, and all kinds of debate.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> I'm not so cool at writing in English, sorry, especially when I have to find very complex examples about very complex topics.
> 
> anyway, for me the first example (the fighting man) was sufficient to understand.



Fair enough. I changed the offending word to the KKK. 
Is that sufficient? Or would you be more comfortable with the removal of the entire example?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

VengerSatanis said:


> Please, let's not derail this thread with further discussion on the merits and flaws of either H.P. Lovecraft or the Cthulhu Mythos. I'm sure there's another thread in this forum that already goes into a 100+ pages of pros, cons, and all kinds of debate.



But it's directly relevant to having calls for his award(s) to be rescinded.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Fair enough. I changed the offending word to the KKK.
> Is that sufficient? Or would you be more comfortable with the removal of the entire example?




thanks, it is sufficient.

anyway I just read in another post that Nazis had amazing merits in science, so I surrender.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Okay, let me rephrase: It _shouldn't_ affect the merit of his work.



Lovecraft remains a poor example because he's not a skilled, engaging storyteller who just so happens to be a xenophobic racist in real life. He included those beliefs in his writing.

And this is me speaking as someone who absolutely loves some of his stories.

But how we look at an author's work evolves with the times and what we learn about that author. There are entire courses you take in a literature degree about that sort of thing.

Not everyone needs to (or should) burn everything Zak S has made if they've already paid for it. The damage is done in that regard. But it's how we move forward that matters. Stripping him of the award is not about the merit of what he created. It's about the merit of the creator himself and how he reflects on the community.



> I don't bring Nazis into things lightly, but they basically a universally accepted evil, and yet that doesn't demerit their work on genetics, no matter how gruesome their methods of research.



Wow.

All I can say in response to this without earning a warning (at best) from a mod is:

Perspective, scale, and context matter.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And I'm sad that most responses are likely to be voyeurism, gossiping, moral preening, wrath and outrage, and nothing that will ever do anyone any good.  I am sad that I can't make anything better.  I am sad I can't wash the wounds.  I am sad that whatever I say will just goad someone on.  I'm sad even that I care when none of my caring matters.
> 
> I'm not sad that I was skeptical of turning Zak into a celebrity - skepticism that no matter how mild I made it occasionally made people upset.  There would be less need for people to publically walk back what they did or said before if they'd simply bought, or not bought, what he was selling and left it at that.   Now we are going to make a big community wide issue of it?  Count me out.  I walked the other way the community was going when he became a star.  I'll probably walk the other way they are walking now.
> 
> UPDATE: Please don't respond to this point if you are thinking to.  My better judgment was almost certainly to stay silent, but grief has a way of boiling out and I made the mistake of reading further in the thread.  The last thing I want is an excuse to drag myself to an argument.




Nope - I'm definitely going to respond and the point I'm going to highlight is where I started the quote. Aside from your comment about "moral preening" being just another term for virtue signaling, the point I'm going to make is that we *need* these discussions and we need them to be public because, whether you like it or not, they *will* help to define the bounds of appropriate behavior and they will help to define what we will tolerate as a community and personally. The lack of conversations about them is one of the reasons behaviors like this persist as long as they do.
Getting these issues out in the open and openly dealing with them are exactly some of the things we need to do in order to make our community and our world a better place.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Lovecraft remains a poor example because he's not a skilled, engaging storyteller who just so happens to be a xenophobic racist in real life. He included those beliefs in his writing.
> 
> And this is me speaking as someone who absolutely loves some of his stories.
> 
> ...



So you would censor the art because of the artist?
Is the integrity of an Ennie worth the political statement of retracting one?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Let's just end this right now re: the Nazis and science comparison, as it is a ridiculous (and highly inappropriate) grasping-at-straws defense of Zak S keeping an award.

Scientific discoveries do not function the same as an award. Science is something that exists regardless of whether or not we've discovered it yet. It's not someone's "creation." It's something that's already there that is discovered at some point and would have always still been there even if someone else discovered it.

An award for writing a game?

Doesn't work like that. At all. Science is something that exists and cannot be "put back in the bottle," whereas an award is something people decide on and, if they so choose, can decide to take away again. Especially when the award is voted on by fans who didn't know everything about the product's creator at the time.

So, if you really want to bring up the Nazis out of some need to defend not taking a community award away from a rapist, let's go with a better analogy:

If Hitler had been given a Nobel Peace Prize prior to WWII, would you be arguing about how, after the war, it shouldn't be stripped from him because, hey, he earned based on his "merit" at the time?

(Hint: yes, there is actually a correct answer to this question.)


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> So you would censor the art because of the artist?
> Is the integrity of an Ennie worth the political statement of retracting one?




Do you really believe that "we don't think serial emotional, physical, and sexual abusers deserve our awards" is a statement that would _harm_ one's integrity?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Do you really believe that "we don't think serial emotional, physical, and sexual abusers deserve our awards" is a statement that would _harm_ one's integrity?



I think "our awards are not based on the content of the winner but on our view towards their author" would harm the integrity of an award that is supposed to be about the quality of content, yes.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> So you would censor the art because of the artist?



Removing an award is not "censoring the art."

The art still exists. It is still on people's shelves and in game stores. It is not being suppressed in any way whatsoever by removing the award. Not in the least.

Removing the award would simply be the community that the award represents saying that rapists don't get to keep their rewards.


> Is the integrity of an Ennie worth the political statement of retracting one?



Two points:

The fact you think the awards' "integrity" is better served by acknowledging the merits of a rapist is rather telling.

Holding rapists to consequences is not political. Literally, no politics are involved unless you're the type of person who thinks that one sort of political leaning is "pro rape" and the other is "anti rape" and you have a problem with the latter.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 11, 2019)

Really EN World? You have someone who has a history of abusive and narcissistic online behavior who has threatened individuals on multiple occasions. This same person now has multiple women coming forth with detailed stories of abuse and domestic violence. Where is your outrage?? Where is your anger?? Women have been hurt and abused for years!!

Is it because these women were porn stars? Are they less than deserving of any of your emotion? Oh wait, is it because he is one of your darlings you feel you must protect him? That is absolute bull!! If it was anyone else you would be on him like a pack of piranhas. I am ashamed to be a member of this community right now after reading many of the responses above. 

Hell yes, strip him of his awards! If I were working in public relations at Wotc, I'd be doing what I could to get his name removed from any product he touched. Period. #Metoo carries some very hefty purse strings with it and companies are realizing it very quickly.

Right now, I can't help but be sickened by the lack of moral outage against Zak S here. I really thought better of you all.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2019)

VengerSatanis said:


> Please, let's not derail this thread with further discussion on the merits and flaws of either H.P. Lovecraft or the Cthulhu Mythos.





I'm going to support this.  The issue at hand isn't Lovecraft.  The digression would be rather disrespectful to the people here and now.  If you want to discuss Lovecraft, please take it to another thread.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I think "our awards are not based on the content of the winner but on our view towards their author" would harm the integrity of an award that is supposed to be about the quality of content, yes.




I think you are confusing "we take our personal biases of the content creators into account for all of our awards" and "we have a very low bar for what ought to be acceptable behavior in order to achieve recognition in our industry, and yet still some men seem incapable of clearing it, so they're out", which are two very different statements.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> If Hitler had been given a Nobel Peace Prize prior to WWII, would you be arguing about how, after the war, it shouldn't be stripped from him because, hey, he earned based on his "merit" at the time?
> 
> (Hint: yes, there is actually a correct answer to this question.)



And the correct answer is yes.
The trick to your statement is that a Hitler that earned a Nobel Peace Prize wouldn't of caused WWII purposefully in the first place.

Of course, it's also a misleading comparison. The peace price is awarded based on the actions of the person, not the quality of their content.


----------



## DM Magic (Feb 11, 2019)

His Wiki page has some interesting edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak_Smith

"*Zak Smith* (born July 16, 1976), also known as *Zak Sabbath*, is an American artist and rapist."
"*Known for* Abuse"


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I think you are confusing "we take our personal biases of the content creators into account for all of our awards" and "we have a very low bar for what ought to be acceptable behavior in order to achieve recognition in our industry, and yet still some men seem incapable of clearing it, so they're out", which are two very different statements.



Yes, they are. And an Ennie should have nothing to do with acceptable behaviour.
An Ennie should be judged on the merits of the work alone. Hell, if it weren't completely impossible, the authors of the works up for voting shouldn't even be known at the time.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> And the correct answer is yes.



Stop there. The rest of your post is pure speculation and assumption.

The fact that you said yes indicates you agree there are reasons someone can lose an award they earned based on the "merit" they displayed at the time it was earned. Your error remains in the fact that you think the ENnies are granted purely based on what the (fan) voters know of the product and not of the person who created it.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Your error remains in the fact that you think the ENnies are granted purely based on what the (fan) voters know of the product and not of the person who created it.



Of course, to assume otherwise questions both the integrity and the point of having an Ennie award.

Of course, you're also conflating personal merit and the merit of someone's works. A peace prize is award based on personal merits, and should be retracted if those merits turn out to be falsified.

An Ennie is based of off the merits of someone's work, and thus should only be retracted if the merits of that work is falsified.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> An Ennie should be judged on the merits of the work alone.



You are entirely assuming this is how they are judged.

Since Zak won that award, there are people who supported him at the time who may have voted for him to win the award, but now state they will never buy a product from him again. Want to guess how they'd vote now for the exact same product?

This is because fan-based awards are voted on for reasons beyond the merit of the work itself, your belief otherwise to the contrary.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> And the correct answer is yes.
> The trick to your statement is that a Hitler that earned a Nobel Peace Prize wouldn't of caused WWII purposefully in the first place.
> 
> Of course, it's also a misleading comparison. The peace price is awarded based on the actions of the person, not the quality of their content.




The "trick to your statement..." Seriously?!! Is that some sort of "Ah ha! Gotcha!!"??

This isn't a hypothetical. 

This is discussing what should be done as a community concerning someone who harassed people out of the industry and has been accused of being a serial rapist. 

This isn't some fun little logic game.

People's actual lives have been messed up because of him. How we respond could be a factor in preventing future situations like this.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> You are entirely assuming this is how they are judged.
> 
> Since Zak won that award, there are people who supported him at the time who may have voted for him to win the award, but now state they will never buy a product from him again. Want to guess how they'd vote now for the exact same product?
> 
> This is because fan-based awards are voted on for reasons beyond the merit of the work itself, your belief otherwise to the contrary.



What's your point?
Unless it's believed that a majority of the votes were because of the author rather than the works (in which case the Ennie shouldn't have been awarded) that changes nothing.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> The "trick to your statement..." Seriously?!! Is that some sort of "Ah ha! Gotcha!!"??
> 
> This isn't a hypothetical.
> 
> ...



And?
None of what I've argued affects how anyone treats him one iota.
I'm not arguing against reprisals, I'm arguing against reprisals against the wrong thing (his works).


----------



## bedir than (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Yes, they are. And an Ennie should have nothing to do with acceptable behaviour.
> An Ennie should be judged on the merits of the work alone. Hell, if it weren't completely impossible, the authors of the works up for voting shouldn't even be known at the time.




It's fairly easy to see that ENnies are not given to the work, but instead to the creators. That's why the creators are given physical awards. If authors didn't matter they wouldn't get an award.

Authors do, in fact, matter.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

bedir than said:


> It's fairly easy to see that ENnies are not given to the work, but instead to the creators. That's why the creators are given physical awards. If authors didn't matter they wouldn't get an award.
> 
> Authors do, in fact, matter.



Umm what?
They win awards _for their work_. That's why they are given the award, because the thing they own won it. The author doesn't matter for who wins.


----------



## jasper (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Was the award for his behaviour, or his work?
> If it's not for his behaviour, why should it be stripped because of it?
> 
> .....



Me and my wife have went round and round on this subject. What do you do to an award winner when his behavior is no longer acceptable. Or has become acceptable? (Alan Turning was prosecuted for being gay).
There is no one answer. Some groups have struck awards from people being unacceptable. Some groups have given awards for past deeds once the behavior/etc have become acceptable. (see various Medal of Honors given to dead black troops).
In modern times do we strike the persons name from the rolls, add an asterisk, etc? 
Do we unperson them by editing their name out of books, thank you's, etc. ?
Does it various with fields? Sorry Bob you are now consider an terrorist, turn in your Noble Peace Prize.
What happens after we unperson someone, we find out the behavior was misreported?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

jasper said:


> Me and my wife have went round and round on this subject. What do you do to an award winner when his behavior is no longer acceptable. Or has become acceptable? (Alan Turning was prosecuted for being gay).
> There is no one answer. Some groups have struck awards from people being unacceptable. Some groups have given awards for past deeds once the behavior/etc have become acceptable. (see various Medal of Honors given to dead black troops).
> In modern times do we strike the persons name from the rolls, add an asterisk, etc?
> Do we unperson them by editing their name out of books, thank you's, etc. ?
> ...



It's why I'm such an advocate for the separation of creator and creation.
I mean, the Abrahamic religions already do it, no-one's condemned Einstein for his part in making nukes (except himself), etc.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Yes, they are. And an Ennie should have nothing to do with acceptable behaviour.
> An Ennie should be judged on the merits of the work alone. Hell, if it weren't completely impossible, the authors of the works up for voting shouldn't even be known at the time.




Fortunately, that's not how this works. Any of our choices within a free society, whether that be commercial (what product to purchase/artist to support) or based on recognition (what products and artists to promote or award), are free to be made upon whatever criterion we so choose, including morality and ethics. That's not a bug; that's a feature.

That you think a rapist should still deserve an award if their artistic talent merits it is troubling to me, if not downright chilling. Continuing to support and recognize rapists for their works is a tacit endorsement of rape, regardless of how much you'd like to believe it isn't. It says "you can still rape and be celebrated within our community/industry." That is unequivocally a _bad_ thing.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Fortunately, that's not how this works. Any of our choices within a free society, whether that be commercial (what product to purchase/artist to support) or based on recognition (what products and artists to promote or award), are free to be made upon whatever criterion we so choose, including morality and ethics. That's not a bug; that's a feature.
> 
> That you think a rapist should still deserve an award if their artistic talent merits it is troubling to me, if not downright chilling. Continuing to support and recognize rapists for their works is a tacit endorsement of rape, regardless of how much you'd like to believe it isn't. It says "you can still rape and be celebrated within our community/industry." That is unequivocally a _bad_ thing.



Ummm no.
Celebration of works is not celebration of person, get off your high horse.


----------



## mjsoctober (Feb 11, 2019)

Whether ENies are given to the creator or the work, rescinding an award because of behaviour we wish to censure is a legitimate means of ensuring better behaviour in the community.

If you want to work in this industry (or any industry, really), and hope to be recognized, respected, and awarded for your work, you better not behave in ways that are not acceptable.

As for being political, ENWorld is a private company. They can make any statement they want by their actions, they have no obligation to any of us. The community will react to those statements accordingly. If the award is rescinded, and more people support that than don't, ENWorld will know which way to move forward.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Of course, to assume otherwise questions both the integrity and the point of having an Ennie award.
> 
> Of course, you're also conflating personal merit and the merit of someone's works. A peace prize is award based on personal merits, and should be retracted if those merits turn out to be falsified.
> 
> An Ennie is based of off the merits of someone's work, and thus should only be retracted if the merits of that work is falsified.



Again, because you seem to somehow keep missing this point:

The ENnies are voted on by fans. These fans are not sampled by the awards process itself so that the voting base is demographically vetted in any way, including which of the products they've been exposed to.

It is literally a popularity contest more than it is a merit contest. Merit comes in to play with the hope that it is the reason why the products being voted on became popular in the first place.

The votes are being made by people who are voting for what they personally like best from among a selection of products that, in all likelihood for most voters, are not all possessed and have even been looked at in their entirety (or at all.)

And, all that aside, even if it were 100% merit, it's still a COMMUNITY based award. How a winner's personal life reflects on that community is often taken into account in situations like this.

I mean ... damn, dude. Are you really this unaware? Do you live on an island where there were no other people for you to develop the rudiments of social interaction and responsibility?

Because you really seem determined to die charging up the worst of all possible hills for the worst of all possible causes.


----------



## raelik777 (Feb 11, 2019)

*Yeah, nah.*



Jeff Slater said:


> You completely put words in my mouth.
> 
> What if it isn’t the victims fault AT ALL.
> 
> ...




I get what you were trying to say, but resorting to this sort of ad hominem attack does nothing to support your argument.  Besides, it was misplaced and I'm not surprised it was interpreted as victim-blaming.  The problem with the argument is that it is a gross over-generalization of what you call "an extremely liberal attitude towards sex".  There is a whole spectrum of "attitudes towards sex" that exist outside the hetero-normative interpretation, and almost none of them represent a failing of moral character. There are almost no actual human beings that actually expect complete sexual freedom and complete emotional safety.  Putting that out there is a blatant strawman, since nobody actually has that expectation. What she was describing wasn't simple "hurt feelings" because of poor expectations in a poly relationship.  It was manipulation and abuse.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> no-one's condemned Einstein for his part in making nukes (except himself), etc.



Sigh.

This assertion is about as valid as your earlier comment about a certain xenophobic writer.

Perhaps you should spend sometime learning about more about Einstein and the role he played in the advancement of scientific ethics and responsibility.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

mjsoctober said:


> Whether ENies are given to the creator or the work, rescinding an award because of behaviour we wish to censure is a legitimate means of ensuring better behaviour in the community.
> 
> If you want to work in this industry (or any industry, really), and hope to be recognized, respected, and awarded for your work, you better not behave in ways that are not acceptable.



This.

So very much this.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Again, because you seem to somehow keep missing this point:
> 
> The ENnies are voted on by fans. These fans are not sampled by the awards process itself so that the voting base is demographically vetted in any way, including which of the products they've been exposed to.
> 
> ...




The the Ennie is worthless anyway, and it's removal or not does nothing. (In which case sure, remove it to distance yourself, there's no integrity to keep.)

And in response to other posts: Yes, I'm a firm believer that a rapist who is a renowned artist should be remember as both a rapist and a renowned artist. There should be no censoring because of morality. People should be known for their acts, both good and bad.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> And?
> None of what I've argued affects how anyone treats him one iota.
> I'm not arguing against reprisals, I'm arguing against reprisals against the wrong thing (his works).




You cannot separate the man's works from his person, especially because support for his work _directly_ supports him personally. This includes:

*Buying his work (money goes directly to Zak)
*Promoting his work (convinces others to buy his work -> see above)
*Reviewing his work (convinces others to buy his work -> see above)
*Celebrating or awarding his work (you get the picture)

Again, as much as you'd like to pretend that you can, you simply cannot separate the man from his works.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> You cannot separate the man's works from his person, especially because support for his work _directly_ supports him personally. This includes:
> 
> *Buying his work (money goes directly to Zak)
> *Promoting his work (convinces others to buy his work -> see above)
> ...



I guess we shouldn't pay our politicians then.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I guess we shouldn't pay our politicians then.




...what?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> ...what?



What? You just said that you can't separate a person from their works, and that we shouldn't support people if they behave in a manner that doesn't agree with our morals.

Therefore we shouldn't pay politicians.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> What? You just said that you can't separate a person from their works, and that we shouldn't support people if they behave in a manner that doesn't agree with our morals.
> 
> Therefore we shouldn't pay politicians.




I very much do not support politicians who behave in a manner that doesn't agree with my morals. Do you often find yourself donating to the campaigns of politicians whose values you disagree with and whose morals and ethics you find questionable/objectionable that you think that this is somehow a counter argument?


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I guess we shouldn't pay our politicians then.




Well, from a political perspective, governmental service should be a _service_ similar to jury duty.  It's generally unhealthy for society to make being a politician a "job" especially a well-paid one.

But beyond that, your argument doesn't really track.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> The the Ennie is worthless anyway, and it's removal or not does nothing. (In which case sure, remove it to distance yourself, there's no integrity to keep.)



If it's removal or not does nothing, why are you so concerned about its removal?



> And in response to other posts: Yes, I'm a firm believer that a rapist who is a renowned artist should be remember as both a rapist and a renowned artist. There should be no censoring because of morality. People should be known for their acts, both good and bad.



If he has his award taken away, he'll still be known. Hell, he'll even be known MORE because he'll be the guy who had his award taken away. Increased exposure for him, hurray! You should be happy for that, no?

The difference is -- and the place where you're having both a logical and a moral disconnect (for increasingly clear reasons) -- is that letting him keep the award sends a positive message about Zak's negative actions.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I very much do not support politicians who behave in a manner that doesn't agree with my morals. Do you often find yourself donating to the campaigns of politicians whose values you disagree with and whose morals and ethics you find questionable/objectionable that you think that this is somehow a counter argument?



I often find myself without a choice as they seem to be the ones in power.

And no, it's not a counter-argument, it's an attempt to inject humour.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> So you would censor the art because of the artist?
> Is the integrity of an Ennie worth the political statement of retracting one?






Yunru said:


> And?
> None of what I've argued affects how anyone treats him one iota.
> I'm not arguing against reprisals, I'm arguing against reprisals against the wrong thing (his works).



The award doesn’t affect his work.
His work is still available. He can still make money from those people when wish to directly support a rapist and spousal abuser. 
It is not being altered or revised or changed. People who own it can continue to use it.

This solely affects the prestige given to him. *HE* no longer qualifies to win the award for his work.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I often find myself without a choice as they seem to be the ones in power.




Wouldn't you like very much to do something about that?



> And no, it's not a counter-argument, it's an attempt to inject humour.




As was my immediate confused response


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> If it's removal or not does nothing, why are you so concerned about its removal?



Because I choose to believe that the majority of voters are not so shallow as to just vote based on author.



> If he has his award taken away, he'll still be known. Hell, he'll even be known MORE because he'll be the guy who had his award taken away. Increased exposure for him, hurray! You should be happy for that, no?



Not at all, as it means that the work is being discredited for the actions of it's author.



> The difference is -- and the place where you're having both a logical and a moral disconnect (for increasingly clear reasons) -- is that letting him keep the award sends a positive message about Zak's negative actions.



I am having no disconnects, thank you very much.

And _your_ logical disconnect is that his actions (for which the award is not for) has anything to do with his work.

Keeping the award sends no positive message about his actions. It sends a positive message about his works. Send all the negative messages about the person as you want, I'll completely agree with you, but taking away the award is a sins of the father fallacy.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Because I choose to believe that the majority of voters are not so shallow as to just vote based on author.



What does your belief have to do with anything beyond your singular vote?



> Not at all, as it means that the work is being discredited for the actions of it's author.



Not at all.

Are you assuming that, were this to happen, ENWorld wouldn't release a statement along with the retraction that would leave no doubt as to why the award was being taken away?



> I am having no disconnects, thank you very much.



No. You do. By definition, based on the point you're arguing, the reasons you're giving, and the cause you've taken up. You really do. Your entire point is based on the "need" to disconnect the gaming community's morals from an author's work with regards to an award that is a popularity contest, of which public opinion of the author plays a key part.



> And _your_ logical disconnect is that his actions (for which the award is not for) has anything to do with his work.



Which would be a fine point ... if I'd ever made it. Indeed, I've said quite the opposite. More than once. With clarifications.

Thus your disconnect.



> Keeping the award sends no positive message about his actions.



Again, says you. Myself and a whole lot of other people (including, it's beginning to turn out, people who have paid him for his work or otherwise worked with him) believe differently than you.



> It sends a positive message about his works. Send all the negative messages about the person as you want, I'll completely agree with you, but taking away the award is a sins of the father fallacy.



Okay then, person not participating in reality with real people along with the rest of us!!!

How is it an issue of the sins of the father when one half of the point is ZAK's award and the other half is ZAK's actions. He's not inheriting squat based on someone else's earlier actions he had no part in, which is what "sins of the father" means.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Umm what?
> They win awards _for their work_. That's why they are given the award, because the thing they own won it. The author doesn't matter for who wins.



Oh, bless your dear sweet little heart. 



Yunru said:


> Ummm no.
> Celebration of works is not celebration of person, get off your high horse.



It's a fan-based celebration of the product _brand_, which includes the author's brand. This is why these awards are awarded to people and people get excited that people won and were acknowledged for their work. And people vote for these products. Companies inform and direct their fans to voting. Fan groups organize people to vote. Authorship is part of the brand identity and it is inseparable from the content, which can work for and against a person (and their works). 



Yunru said:


> And in response to other posts: Yes, I'm a firm believer that a rapist who is a renowned artist should be remember as both a rapist and a renowned artist. There should be no censoring because of morality. People should be known for their acts, both good and bad.



Stop gaslighting. This isn't censorship.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> What does your belief have to do with anything beyond your singular vote?
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> ...



Because it's not ZAK's award. It's his work's. Retracting the award from the works becajse of the author is punishing the child for the sins of the father. The work has nothing to do with his actions, and thus would be unfairly inhereting the stigma.

I'll also thank you to quit with the personal attacks, as this is the second post in succession where you have made them. It's almost... abusive.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> The the Ennie is worthless anyway, and it's removal or not does nothing. (In which case sure, remove it to distance yourself, there's no integrity to keep.)
> 
> And in response to other posts: Yes, I'm a firm believer that a rapist who is a renowned artist should be remember as both a rapist and a renowned artist. There should be no censoring because of morality. People should be known for their acts, both good and bad.




Since you're getting a little dogpiled here, I'll voice my agreement for this.  _The Usual Suspects_ doesn't stop being a great movie simply because Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey both turned out to be pieces of s**t.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Oh, bless your dear sweet little heart.
> 
> It's a fan-based celebration of the product _brand_, which includes the author's brand. This is why these awards are awarded to people and people get excited that people won and were acknowledged for their work. And people vote for these products. Companies inform and direct their fans to voting. Fan groups organize people to vote. Authorship is part of the brand identity and it is inseparable from the content, which can work for and against a person (and their works).



Tell that to everyone who's ever worked under a penname.



> Stop gaslighting. This isn't censorship.



Right, retracting "this was good enough to win an award" isn't censoring the fact that it was good enough to win an award, got you.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> doesn't affect the merit of his work.



 Yes, it does.



DQDesign said:


> @_*Jester David*_
> 
> please don't compare private crimes with Nazism.
> abusing multiple people is disgusting, no doubt about it.
> ...



 I just want to point out, because it is very important, that "neo-nazi" marches do not reference the German Nazis of the 20th century, except as they are the example after which neo-nazis model themselves. The reference was to marches full of neo-nazis, which are an actual current American issue. People literally tattooing swaztikas on themselves, and doing the nazi salute, and using lame numerical codes to reference Hitler, etc. It's a topical example, because neo-nazis are more in the news in the US than they've been in decades. 



Gradine said:


> I have zero respect for those that for some reason feel the need, in this moment, to express sympathy for the man.




I have more sympathy for people like Satine Pheonix, who had to wake up to find out that she was very wrong about someone she called a friend, than I do for zak the scumbag or anyone who defends him or expresses sympathy for his "plight". 

I can't believe any of this even needs to be said...




Yunru said:


> Ummm no.
> Celebration of works is not celebration of person, get off your high horse.



I literally, unavoidably, is. 



mjsoctober said:


> Whether ENies are given to the creator or the work, rescinding an award because of behaviour we wish to censure is a legitimate means of ensuring better behaviour in the community.
> 
> If you want to work in this industry (or any industry, really), and hope to be recognized, respected, and awarded for your work, you better not behave in ways that are not acceptable.
> 
> As for being political, ENWorld is a private company. They can make any statement they want by their actions, they have no obligation to any of us. The community will react to those statements accordingly. If the award is rescinded, and more people support that than don't, ENWorld will know which way to move forward.




Yes, this. 



Yunru said:


> I guess we shouldn't pay our politicians then.




When they are revealed to be rapists, yes. They should be fired and never allowed back into public office. 

How is this complicated?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Tell that to everyone who's ever worked under a penname.



I think that they are well aware given how pen names are a crafted part of the authorial brand that increases product recognition. 



> Right, retracting "this was good enough to win an award" isn't censoring the fact that it was good enough to win an award, got you.



You're correct that it isn't the same.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> I think that they are well aware given how pen names are a crafted part of the authorial brand that increases product recognition.



Except you were just arguing that an author's actions were inseparable from their works. Something provably false by the existance of pen names.



> You're correct that it isn't the same.



That was sarcasm. They're exactly the same.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

I cannot verify the veracity of the testimony. Furthermore neither I nor anyone I personally know is interested in entering a relationship with Mr. Smith. So why should I or anyone here whose situation is similar to mine even care?  That's something between Mr. Smith and these ladies.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I have zero respect for those that for some reason feel the need, in this moment, to express sympathy for the man.




Literally no one has done that.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> That was sarcasm. They're exactly the same.




Well, it's not exactly the same...just ask the National Champion (vacated) 2004 USC Trojans.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> It's a fan-based celebration of the product _brand_, which includes the author's brand. This is why these awards are awarded to people and people get excited that people won and were acknowledged for their work. And people vote for these products. Companies inform and direct their fans to voting. Fan groups organize people to vote. Authorship is part of the brand identity and it is inseparable from the content, which can work for and against a person (and their works).



Which explains my general skepticism towards awards and brands.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 11, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> When they are revealed to be rapists, yes. They should be fired and never allowed back into public office.




FWIW, felony convictions render one ineligible to hold most public offices.

As for divorcing artists from their art...there are a great many not very nice people in creative fields.  As the saying goes:
“Never meet your heroes, because they're sure to disappoint you.”


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Then you should stop engaging, report my post, and let the moderators decide.




Well no that is not going to happen because *I* am the one who is making it personal.

I mean where in the code of conduct is the warning against personally addressing someone on the forums.



> But let me take another crack at explaining this:
> Okay, the #MeToo movement is very topical and is a hot button issue. Which makes something like this needlessly controversial. So let's try separating that issue from Zak and looking at it again.
> 
> Imagine if Zak S had instead caused regular fights at a convention and beaten the tar out of multiple convention goers?
> ...




Do you have any other imaginary things that Zak S might have done that we should be aware of?  Imagine if Zak S was orange and was the President of the USA?  Well we would definitely have to strip him of his Ennie awards then.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I cannot verify the veracity of the testimony. Furthermore neither I nor anyone I personally know is interested in entering a relationship with Mr. Smith. So why should I or anyone here whose situation is similar to mine even care?  That's something between Mr. Smith and these ladies.




If you really do believe it is just between them and don't care... then why are you posting in this thread???

I never understood some people's need to take the time and effort to publicly proclaim that they don't care about something. It completely undermines the point they are claiming to make.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I cannot verify the veracity of the testimony. Furthermore neither I nor anyone I personally know is interested in entering a relationship with Mr. Smith. So why should I or anyone here whose situation is similar to mine even care?  That's something between Mr. Smith and these ladies.




I think it's called "empathy".


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Do you have any other imaginary things that Zak S might have done that we should be aware of?




Psst... those were hypothetical.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> Psst... those were hypothetical.




Yes that is what I said, imaginary.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Except you were just arguing that an author's actions were inseparable from their works. Something provably false by the existance of pen names.



There are many authors we know more by their pen names and similarly actors by their stage names. Many works of literature, theater, and cinema are examined in light of the creator's actions and their works. And all of this is beside the point when talking about the Ennies, Zak Smith, and his actions. 

There is a reason why James Watson (one of two scientists who won a Nobel prize for stealing the work of Rosalind Franklin) was recently stripped of a number of his honors by the laboratory that had worked for since 1968. It was because of his actions making incredibly racist remarks and justifying it with debunked science. 



> That was sarcasm. They're exactly the same.



Thank you. I'm glad that you informed me that it was sarcasm, as I never could have gathered that naturally from the puerile tone entrenched in the false equivalent statement that you provided.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Holding rapists to consequences is not political. Literally, no politics are involved unless you're the type of person who thinks that one sort of political leaning is "pro rape" and the other is "anti rape" and you have a problem with the latter.




Has anyone actually been convicted of a crime?  Is libel even a thing from where you are from?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> There is a reason why James Watson (one of two scientists who won a Nobel prize for stealing the work of Rosalind Franklin) was recently stripped of a number of his honors by the laboratory that had worked for since 1968. It was because of his actions making incredibly racist remarks and justifying it with debunked science.




The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said it was revoking Watson’s honorary titles, which include chancellor emeritus, Oliver R Grace professor emeritus, and honorary trustee.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Because it's not ZAK's award. It's his work's. Retracting the award from the works becajse of the author is punishing the child for the sins of the father. The work has nothing to do with his actions, and thus would be unfairly inhereting the stigma.



Speaking as a professional author ...

say what?

Tell you what: if you can get Zak's work to provide you with a victim's impact statement regarding how potentially taking away the award makes it feel, I'll jump on board with you 100%.



> I'll also thank you to quit with the personal attacks, as this is the second post in succession where you have made them. It's almost... abusive.



Stop providing the evidence that makes the observations accurate. If you don't like the response you get for what you're saying, stop saying those things.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Yes that is what I said, imaginary.




Then why were you asking for more that we should be aware of? Just imagine them if you want.

And I'm wondering what the line is between accusing someone of harassing Zak for saying he should have his awards taken away, then taking issue with even hypothetical points they make, and (literally) showing sympathy for Zak. It's looking awfully blurry when someone works so hard to defend Zak's awards.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> If you really do believe it is just between them and don't care... then why are you posting in this thread???
> 
> I never understood some people's need to take the time and effort to publicly proclaim that they don't care about something. It completely undermines the point they are claiming to make.



That's a logical fallacy. I do not care about the actual subject because without verifiable evidence it's all rumor-mongering to me. I do care (at least enough to post here) about people not exhibiting the same attitude to the issue.



Morrus said:


> I think it's called "empathy".



There's nothing to be empathic about as I have no way of deciding if the testimony is truthful or a bunch of lies. Without that information who should I be empathic to - Zak Smith or his accusers? Who has been wronged here? I don't know, so I will abstain from taking sides.

Do you know?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I cannot verify the veracity of the testimony. Furthermore neither I nor anyone I personally know is interested in entering a relationship with Mr. Smith. So why should I or anyone here whose situation is similar to mine even care?  That's something between Mr. Smith and these ladies.



And yet you took the time to post that here.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Has anyone actually been convicted of a crime?  Is libel even a thing from where you are from?



Though he was preemptively pardoned by Ford, Nixon was never formally convicted of a crime when he resigned, but we had increasing evidence of illegal wrong-doing and acted upon that evidence.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> Then why were you asking for more that we should be aware of? Just imagine them if you want.
> 
> And I'm wondering what the line is between accusing someone of harassing Zak for saying he should have his awards taken away, then taking issue with even hypothetical points they make, and (literally) showing sympathy for Zak. It's looking awfully blurry when someone works so hard to defend Zak's awards.




Well, lets imagine that kenmarble was part of the KKK.  How many people do you think he would have killed?

Do you not see the problem with this?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Has anyone actually been convicted of a crime?  Is libel even a thing from where you are from?



Do you twirl your oversized moustache and laugh mockingly as you type?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Though he was preemptively pardoned by Ford, Nixon was never formally convicted of a crime when he resigned, but we had increasing evidence of illegal wrong-doing and acted upon that evidence.




Did Nixon get stripped of his ex-Presidental status after he resigned?

I am guessing not since, as you say, he never was convicted of illegal wrong-doings.  If you look at the history book it does not say 39th President of the USA vacated.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Do you twirl your oversized moustache and laugh mockingly as you type?




Lets not make it personal now.  The mods dont like it when I get personal.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Though he was preemptively pardoned by Ford, Nixon was never formally convicted of a crime when he resigned, but we had increasing evidence of illegal wrong-doing and acted upon that evidence.




I hope you're not implying we should hold anyone to the same standards as a man holding the highest public office in the land.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Lets not make it personal now.  The mods dont like it when I get personal.



Feel free.

My feelings tend not to get hurt by people who stand up for the sort of things you've been defending in this thread.


----------



## redrick (Feb 11, 2019)

Y'all just going around in circles with the same few people, using increasingly outlandish analogies. I think it's a waste of time. Don't put the pressure on the few customers who proudly proclaim that one's "personal life" (eg, serial harassment, sexual assault and partner abuse) should be kept entirely separate from their art. Put pressure on the people who have the power to stop enabling Zak through giving him access to their marketplace, through granting him awards, through celebrating his work.

Stripping an abuser of their influence within their community is not just about meting out punishment. It is about taking away one of the weapons that they use to harass, assault and torment countless individuals — their power and standing in a community.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I hope you're not implying we should hold anyone to the same standards as a man holding the highest public office in the land.



Yeah.

It would just be CRAZY if both the president and Zak S were held up to the standard of not sexually and otherwise assaulting and abusing women.

Imagine living in such a topsy-turvy world.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

What would be the value of an award that can get stripped based on hearsay? It would be nil.

What's even the value of an award that is, in part, based on personal conduct and not strictly professional excellence? Why would I, as an industry professional, even want an award if that would give some award comittee some leverage about my *personal life*? To be honest, I'd rather skip the award and be in charge of my own destiny.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> What's even the value of an award that is, in part, based on personal conduct and not strictly professional excellence? Why would I, as an industry professional, even want an award if that would give some award comittee some leverage about my *personal life*? To be honest, I'd rather skip the award and be in charge of my own destiny.



When the "leverage about my personal life" is along the lines of "hmmmmm, did I or didn't I sexually assault anyone?", I don't really see the problem with that sort of person filtering themselves out of the mix.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I hope you're not implying we should hold anyone to the same standards as a man holding the highest public office in the land.





Shasarak said:


> Did Nixon get stripped of his ex-Presidental status after he resigned?
> 
> I am guessing not since, as you say, he never was convicted of illegal wrong-doings.  If you look at the history book it does not say 39th President of the USA vacated.



You are two are both presenting strawman arguments, though I cannot say for certain whether you are intentionally or unintentionally misreading me. I would certainly like to believe the latter so I will give you another chance to contextualize my statement. But here is a hint: Nixon's POTUS status is not the point.


----------



## monsmord (Feb 11, 2019)

The word at the fulcrum of this awards back-and-forth has become "merit:" "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward."

Like a lot of words, "merit," "good," and "worthy" are subjective.  Yunru argues "merit" is a value independent of authorship, others disagree.  Neither can be inherently right or wrong.  But the dependent clause there is the kicker, especially "reward."

I'm reminded of Pete Rose (an older-generation major league baseball player, for those of a certain age or not of a certain country).  Some feel his outstanding record warrants his inclusion in the Basebell Hall of Fame, others feel his behavior off the field (namely betting on baseball - while a player and manager) sullied the good name of the sport and he should remain disqualified.  Depends on where your values lie, and what sort of message one wants to send.  The Hall of Fame concluded that Rose's behavior was contrary to the spirit of the game, and for this he was not eligible for the rewards of membership.  He'll continue to hold his records until they're broken, and no one disputes his expertise or accomplishments, but he will not be found in Cooperstown (unless he's visiting) because, as determined by the Hall of Fame, accomplishment is not the sole determiner when celebrating the best baseball has to offer.  Had his gambling been limited to horses or poker, it wouldn't have been an issue; but betting on the sport (and on his team) while contributing to the sport is at best problematic, and at worst cheating: hence the ban.

It has been well documented for the past several years that Zak S has engaged in prolonged campaigns of bullying and harassment of gamers, content creators, and industry professionals, both personally and through directed proxies.  He has even impersonated at least one industry professional online in an effort to discredit them.  Even if you choose to ignore the many claims against him of misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia, even if you dismiss the credible statements of victims of his personal non-gaming abuse and harassment... the fact that he has and continues to undermine the diversity and creative stable of the industry, and to sully the image of our hobby as an inclusive, welcoming community, should be enough to convince you that he should not be rewarded for his behavior, not by us.  It's a black mark on the industry that we continue to say, "It doesn't matter how you treat my fellow gamers or publishers, or how negatively you impact the creative potential of others in my hobby, just write something I like and it'll be okay."

The gaming hobby and industry benefits, as most things do, from diversity, inclusion, and choice.  We won't all agree on, well, pretty much anything, evidenced here.  But all should be welcome - and safe - across demographics.  To make that possible, the gaming community and content providers must abide by the Popper Paradox: to be tolerant, it must be intolerant of intolerance.  Zak S and people like him are cancerous: turning off existing and potential gamers, rattling creators, limiting diversity, and generating divisiveness not because of any artistry, but because of his actions and choices IRL.  The recent statement by The Gauntlet is a decisive and - to the point that gaming should be welcoming and safe - positive step in this direction.

The ENnies have an opportunity to say with force that behaviors contrary to the spirit of gaming can be neither rewarded nor encouraged, that part of being the "best" of anything in gaming is in improving and growing the hobby for all current and future gamers, that -isms and -phobias and harassment and bullying aren't virtues to celebrate or ignore, and will not be sanctioned or rewarded.  We can encourage creative excellence AND discourage abhorrent behaviors; these are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Do you have any other imaginary things that Zak S might have done that we should be aware of?  Imagine if Zak S was orange and was the President of the USA?  Well we would definitely have to strip him of his Ennie awards then.



Yes, they were “imaginary”. They were hypothetical examples raised in an attempt to get past a potential logical block that many people have regarding sexual assault accusations to get to the crux of the issue: that if someone behaves negatively, they should lose social standing and boons awarded to them. 
That being an “award wining gaming writer” includes some behavioral expectations. That to be able to claim the increases sales and prestige of listing the ENnies among your accolades, you need to refrain from performing societally unacceptable acts. That you need to meet a minimum requirement of “non a-hole” to qualify to win the award, with the bar set at the fairly low “don’t assault people.”

Because while the two examples I gave were hypothetical and thus imaginary, the three complaints raised in the news article and the many, many other examples of his poor behaviour online are NOT imaginary. 

To do otherwise and let him keep the award is to knowingly and willingly allow a rapists to continue profit from the prestige of having said award. To not speak up and remain silent is to condone his actions, emboldens him and those like him. 
It tells people that the industry is tolerant and accepting of abusers.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> You are two are both presenting strawman arguments, though I cannot say for certain whether you are intentionally or unintentionally misreading me. I would certainly like to believe the latter so I will give you another chance to contextualize my statement. But here is a hint: Nixon's POTUS status is not the point.




So if Nixons POTUS status is not the point, what is your point?


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Yeah.
> 
> It would just be CRAZY if both the president and Zak S were held up to the standard of not sexually and otherwise assaulting and abusing women.
> 
> Imagine living in such a topsy-turvy world.




I would kindly request that you refrain from putting words into my mouth and then arguing against the strawman, thank you very much. 

At no point did I suggest Zak Smith, if(!) he had been sexually harrassing/abusing anyone, should not be legally held accountable for it. And I would kindly ask you to refrain from making any statements that even _could_ be read as implying such. 
_What I am saying_ is that determining the truth of such accusations usually involves a fairly elaborate process commonly called "trial" which is beyond the scope of my means and interest. And I suspect it's beyond at least beyond the means of anyone else in here as well.

My only interest here is the public reaction, specifically by anyone who lacks complete information and comes down *on either side of the fence*. It is both inappropriate and unbecoming.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 11, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Yes, they were “imaginary”. They were hypothetical examples raised in an attempt to get past a potential logical block that many people have regarding sexual assault accusations to get to the crux of the issue: that if someone behaves negatively, they should lose social standing and boons awarded to them.
> That being an “award wining gaming writer” includes some behavioral expectations. That to be able to claim the increases sales and prestige of listing the ENnies among your accolades, you need to refrain from performing societally unacceptable acts. That you need to meet a minimum requirement of “non a-hole” to qualify to win the award, with the bar set at the fairly low “don’t assault people.”
> 
> Because while the two examples I gave were hypothetical and thus imaginary, the three complaints raised in the news article and the many, many other examples of his poor behaviour online are NOT imaginary.
> ...



It is a false dictomy to say that a lck of active denail is a sign of tacit approval, and a sign of arguing in bad faith.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I would kindly request that you refrain from putting words into my mouth and then arguing against the strawman, thank you very much.



I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was taking your statement regarding standards people should be held to and extending it's logic into the point at hand.

Funny how the scenario was appropriate to both parties, no?


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> You are two are both presenting strawman arguments, though I cannot say for certain whether you are intentionally or unintentionally misreading me. I would certainly like to believe the latter so I will give you another chance to contextualize my statement. But here is a hint: Nixon's POTUS status is not the point.




You're right. The main point in all of this is that absent of clear evidence, it's impossible to come down on either side.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 11, 2019)

I don't think public-vote awards should be rescinded, no matter how scuzzy the person. If Vox Day or Varg Vikernes wins an ENnie, it should stand IMO. It says nothing about their moral character.

As for the OP, I feel sorry for Mandy, and I expect she had good reasons for posting when she did. I appreciate that she feels bad about having facilitated the abuse of others. I don't plan to buy any more of Zak's stuff.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 11, 2019)

Yunru said:


> It is a false dictomy to say that a lck of active denail is a sign of tacit approval, and a sign of arguing in bad faith.



Nope.

Not at all.

Not remotely.

Because the party that Jester David is talking about is the party responsible for handing out the award in the first place, not you, I, or anyone else. What they say (or don't say) has a very specific, relevant context.

And any reasonable person would not have even bothered arguing otherwise because this fact should be obvious to people who, you know, interact with other people.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 11, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> You're right. The main point in all of this is that absent of clear evidence, it's impossible to come down on either side.




Well you have three people making a claim. They could all be lying due to some unrelated and unknown matter, but probably they're not. You don't have to apply criminal court standards of beyond 
reasonable doubt in forming an opinion whether something is probably true.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Well, lets imagine that kenmarble was part of the KKK.  How many people do you think he would have killed?
> 
> Do you not see the problem with this?




No, I don’t. Imagine whatever you want. If it’s obviously making a hypothetical point like you are, then I’m not worried.

Are you worried about Zak’s reputation? I thought “literally no one” was showing sympathy for him?


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 11, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Well you have three people making a claim. They could all be lying due to some unrelated and unknown matter, but probably they're not. You don't have to apply criminal court standards of beyond
> reasonable doubt in forming an opinion whether something is probably true.




Not to mention years and years of dozens of people making accusations against him and documented cases of harassment, and even those close to him who defended him in the past have said they were wrong and he’s as awful as others have said.

But if someone looks at all that and says, “Well, he denies it, so who knows?” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don’t think there’s just any reasoning with them.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 11, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was taking your statement regarding standards people should be held to and extending it's logic into the point at hand.




You made a comment that _could be read_ as sarcastically implying that I think sexual harrassers of women should not be held accountable. If you do that again, I will flag the post.
"It would just be CRAZY if both the president and Zak S were held up to the standard of not sexually and otherwise assaulting and abusing women."
If that was not your intention, you now have an opportunity to clarify.

If Zak Smith commited a felony and it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, he should be held accountable for it. No doubt.
But if some people who I do not know make some accusations against Zak Smith and I cannot verify the veracity of these statements whatsoever, I do register these charges and that's it. It's hearsay. It's rumor-mongering. It might be true, it might be not.

Conversely, if an important public figure like the US president was accused of sexual harrassment, a public investigation would ensue and I could monitor its proceedings, at least. So there is some grounds for determining the veracity of charges. And that even ignores that the fate of the US presidency has probably more impact on my life than the fate of Mr. Smith, so I have way more incentive to look at the evidence.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 11, 2019)

The basic situation here makes me sad. The resulting discussion here makes me moreso. I don't think it's necessary or productive for anyone to try and make decisions about what someone else should do with their money.

For myself, I don't have any intention of getting rid of my copies of Vornheim or Death Frost Doom at this point, but I will certainly be watching how this all shakes out before buying any more of his work.


----------



## timbannock (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> That's a logical fallacy. I do not care about the actual subject because without verifiable evidence it's all rumor-mongering to me. I do care (at least enough to post here) about people not exhibiting the same attitude to the issue.
> 
> 
> There's nothing to be empathic about as I have no way of deciding if the testimony is truthful or a bunch of lies. Without that information who should I be empathic to - Zak Smith or his accusers? Who has been wronged here? I don't know, so I will abstain from taking sides.
> ...




What is the level of evidence you require for this not to be rumor-mongering?

There are verifiable accounts of many of the things Zak has been accused of in the past. There are credible allegations by many credible people that can be found with a 2-minute stretch on Google of things he's done leading up to these allegations that would suggest these allegations are not out of character for him.

Even these current allegations now have folks on various social media -- twitter and reddit, so far, that I can find -- that suggest the allegations are credible, and offer eye-witness statements.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Well you have three people making a claim. They could all be lying due to some unrelated and unknown matter, but probably they're not. You don't have to apply criminal court standards of beyond
> reasonable doubt in forming an opinion whether something is probably true.




Can you guarantee that three people (not necessarily women) from your past won't ever come forward publically and make up some false claims about you? I can't and I have been a saint, LOL. If you think back of your life, can you think of 3 people (again, not talking about women) that have been habitual liars?

But maybe that is the difference between me and certain others in the public: I am not willing to condemn Zak Smith (and I am banned from his blog due to a brief debate about GNS, LOL) because something is "probably true". Imagine it wasn't - would feel pretty bad to do so then.

To only look at probabilities without looking at the consequences of error is wrong. It's better to abstain. If a crime has been perpetrated, law enforcement should be involved or should have been involved - so that all the hobby sleuths and wanaabe inquisitors out there don't have to. Other than that, the people who actually know the people involed in person may possibly make up their minds in a more informed manner. I can't.

Also, I have already said too much in this thread. _People these days just love to judge and condemn others_; they pretend they do so because they have some real or alleged victim's interest in mind. I think they just like doing the condemnation; it feels good for a moment or two. Pointing fingers at the sinner, a secular form of holier-than-thou.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 12, 2019)

Yunru said:


> So you would censor the art because of the artist?
> Is the integrity of an Ennie worth the political statement of retracting one?






Yunru said:


> It is a false dictomy to say that a lck of active denail is a sign of tacit approval, and a sign of arguing in bad faith.



Disagree.
Normally, yes, silence does not equal approval. But in this instance, letting someone claim the benefits of an award rather than revoking it is knowingly letting them profit from having said award.

Just like it is up to DriveThruRPG to decide if they want to continue to sell his books and enable a serial abuser to make money.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> You made a comment that _could be read_ as sarcastically implying that I think sexual harrassers of women should not be held accountable. If you do that again, I will flag the post.



OH NO!

You'll flag a post that takes your logic and actually applies it to the situation at hand!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



> If that was not your intention, you now have an opportunity to clarify.



How magnanimous of you.



> If Zak Smith commited a felony and it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, he should be held accountable for it. No doubt.
> But if some people who I do not know make some accusations against Zak Smith and I cannot verify the veracity of these statements whatsoever, I do register these charges and that's it. It's hearsay. It's rumor-mongering. It might be true, it might be not.



Why am I not surprised that you consider mutliple accusations of sexual abuse, from numerous people, over years, to be "hearsay" and "rumor-mongering."

I am Jack's total lack of surprise!



> Conversely, if an important public figure like the US president was accused of sexual harrassment, a public investigation would ensue and I could monitor its proceedings, at least. So there is some grounds for determining the veracity of charges. And that even ignores that the fate of the US presidency has probably more impact on my life than the fate of Mr. Smith, so I have way more incentive to look at the evidence.



Well, it's good to note that how something like this impacts you personally determines how willing you are to give consideration to sexual abuse accusations.

That confirms a lot of suspicions for people in this thread, I'm certain.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

timbannock said:


> What is the level of evidence you require for this not to be rumor-mongering?



Apparrently it's got a lot to do with how much it personally imapcts him.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> No, I don’t. Imagine whatever you want. If it’s obviously making a hypothetical point like you are, then I’m not worried.
> 
> Are you worried about Zak’s reputation? I thought “literally no one” was showing sympathy for him?




I am not worried about Zak S's reputation, I am worried about people who think that it is somehow ok to imagine fake situations and compare them to real life tragedies.

It is just fake news and people like you are responsible for spreading it.

Stop being part of the problem.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Can you guarantee that three people (not necessarily women) from your past won't ever come forward publically and make up some false claims about you? I can't and I have been a saint, LOL. If you think back of your life, can you think of 3 people (again, not talking about women) that have been habitual liars?



There's a certain type of man who hears the sort of thing Zak has been accused of, from multiple women, and says something like this.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Can you guarantee that three people (not necessarily women) from your past won't ever come forward publically and make up some false claims about you? I can't and I have been a saint, LOL. If you think back of your life, can you think of 3 people (again, not talking about women) that have been habitual liars?
> 
> But maybe that is the difference between me and certain others in the public: I am not willing to condemn Zak Smith (and I am banned from his blog due to a brief debate about GNS, LOL) because something is "probably true". Imagine it wasn't - would feel pretty bad to do so then.
> 
> ...



So, to be clear, you are calling the accusers liars?
You are saying they were not assaulted and their claims are baseless? 

Furthermore, despite the fact the FBI pegs the number of false rape claims at 8%, you believe we _cannot_ take women at their word when they claim to have been assaulted. 
Because it *might* damage the reputation of one man.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Also, I have already said too much in this thread. _People these days just love to judge and condemn others_; they pretend they do so because they have some real or alleged victim's interest in mind. I think they just like doing the condemnation; it feels good for a moment or two. Pointing fingers at the sinner, a secular form of holier-than-thou.




Yeah, I agree.  Three fingers point back at you.  You have to work on yourself first.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Can you guarantee that three people (not necessarily women) from your past won't ever come forward publically and make up some false claims about you?




I would be pretty surprised!!  Certainly if three people I knew disliked me enough AND 
liked each other enough to make false claims about me. IME the kind of people who tell lies 
are not nice people and don't tend to like each other much either, so conspiracies are quite rare.

Anyway all I'm doing is not buying his stuff going forward (I only have Vornheim). I probably wouldn't have bought his stuff anyway due to him having demonstrably been a jerk on other occasions.
I don't need criminal standard of proof to make that decision.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Yeah, I agree.  Three fingers point back at you.  You have to work on yourself first.



Thanks for clearing that up using the same rudimentary, naive logic I use on my 5 year old to teach him the absolute basics of ethics as a starting point for dealing with life. As an adult, you probably should have advanced beyond that a tad.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> I am not worried about Zak S's reputation, I am worried about people who think that it is somehow ok to imagine fake situations and compare them to real life tragedies.



Actually, I think the English language has a word for this sort of thing ... you know, when you propose a hypothetical situation as a position of comparison to clarify a point.

I believe it's called an "analogy."



> It is just fake news and people like you are responsible for spreading it.




*snort*



> Stop being part of the problem.




Why do you hate the English language so?


----------



## Shadow Demon (Feb 12, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Anyway all I'm doing is not buying his stuff going forward (I only have Vornheim). I probably wouldn't have bought his stuff anyway due to him having demonstrably been a jerk on other occasions. I don't need criminal standard of proof to make that decision.




Instead of creating this dumpster fire thread, everyone could just agree with the above statement and then move on.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

timbannock said:


> What is the level of evidence you require for this not to be rumor-mongering?




That is actually a fair question. The bar is pretty high at this point, for, due to my lack of personal stakes in the case, my interest level is fairly low. (I do take some interest in public reaction to such cases though, which is largely why I am here.) So the requirements would be pretty high. Something that makes this an open-shut case. Or, even better yet, a conviction or acquittal. Because, here's the thing - both Smith as well as these women are more or less random strangers to me. 



timbannock said:


> There are verifiable accounts of many of the things Zak has been accused of in the past. There are credible allegations by many credible people that can be found with a 2-minute stretch on Google of things he's done leading up to these allegations that would suggest these allegations are not out of character for him.




As mentioned I have had a brief run-in with him and was promptly banned from his board. That didn't leave a good impression. But "not out of character " of course doesn't mean he did anything. Doesn't mean he did nothing either. 



timbannock said:


> Even these current allegations now have folks on various social media -- twitter and reddit, so far, that I can find -- that suggest the allegations are credible, and offer eye-witness statements.




Well, then apparently there is an ongoing public investigation. Good! Wake me up when the process has concluded (which requires going beyond rumor-mongering on the internet) and I'll skim over the executive summary of the findings to verify if proper procedures were being followed. 
The great thing about having countries that have law enforcement agencies and courts is that I normally don't have to engage in vigilante-ism, in whatever form.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> I am not worried about Zak S's reputation, I am worried about people who think that it is somehow ok to imagine fake situations and compare them to real life tragedies.
> 
> It is just fake news and people like you are responsible for spreading it.
> 
> Stop being part of the problem.




Speaking of “fake news”, quote where I spread these fake situations against Zak.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> Speaking of “fake news”, quote where I spread these fake situations against Zak.




This is you supporting fake news:



kenmarable said:


> > Well, lets imagine that kenmarble was part of the KKK. How many people do you think he would have killed?
> >
> > Do you not see the problem with this?
> 
> ...


----------



## Rygar (Feb 12, 2019)

Oh look...ENWorld took something posted to a social media site, which doesn't seem to have law enforcement involvment to show whether or not it's accurate, posted it as news, and started a giant politics thread even though the site claims to have a "No Politics" rule.

One of these days someone's going to sue the bejeesus out of the site owners for their "News" articles.


----------



## Saracenus (Feb 12, 2019)

This! Yes, This! As a gaming/community organizer I cannot separate creative content from its creator because if I laud the content and DO NOT address the behavior I am tacitly endorsing/enabling their behavior. 

Nothing kills a community (any community) quicker than allowing toxic people to continue to operate in those spaces. The very people you want there, the people you want to encourage to participate there will start to leave. The death spiral of a community unwilling to hold it members to community standards is brutal.

If these accusations were happening in a vacuum I would be more inclined to hold my judgement and see what came of them, but they have not. There has been long documented proof that Zack S. behavior is toxic and contrary to the stated rules of this site (and many others). So, the question is not weather Zack S. should be stripped of his awards here, the real question is why has it taken so damn long to even become a question.



monsmord said:


> The word at the fulcrum of this awards back-and-forth has become "merit:" "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward."
> 
> Like a lot of words, "merit," "good," and "worthy" are subjective.  Yunru argues "merit" is a value independent of authorship, others disagree.  Neither can be inherently right or wrong.  But the dependent clause there is the kicker, especially "reward."
> 
> ...


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> This is you supporting fake news:




You said I was spreading it. Quote that. I’ll wait.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Rygar said:


> started a giant politics thread even though the site claims to have a "No Politics" rule.



Where, exactly, is the politics?


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Anyway all I'm doing is not buying his stuff going forward (I only have Vornheim). I probably wouldn't have bought his stuff anyway due to him having demonstrably been a jerk on other occasions.
> I don't need criminal standard of proof to make that decision.




I'm not arguing against you (not) doing that - it's your prerogative entriely and that's fine. Personal freedom and all that.

I don't think I have ever bought anything by him. But I wouldn't rule it out now. I wouldn't even rule it out if he was convicted of any charges. Here's why: it's not my job to punish anyone for any wrong they have done. We have courts for that. (Granted, I'd probably see it differently if I knew any victim personally and believed them but that's another thing.)

Why do I have to avenge some alleged misdeed that some random person on the other side of the globe did to another person? (By not buying anything from that person.) I thought the courts system existed so that I *don't* have to engage in vigilantism myself? So that I don't have to even worry about punishing other people. This is very inconvenient.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> You said I was spreading it. Quote that. I’ll wait.




So now you want to care about fake news?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> I am not worried about Zak S's reputation, I am worried about people who think that it is somehow ok to imagine fake situations and compare them to real life tragedies.
> 
> It is just fake news and people like you are responsible for spreading it.
> 
> Stop being part of the problem.



You're gaslighting (again).


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> So now you want to care about fake news?




So, that’s a no, then. That’s what I thought.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> I wouldn't even rule it out if he was convicted of any charges. Here's why: it's not my job to punish anyone for any wrong they have done. We have courts for that.



And many jurisdictions within which courts operate have laws about people being able to make money from books and the like while they are behind bars.

But not buying anything from him isn't about punishing him. It's about condemning what he's done to others and not wanting to put money in his pocket.

I'm not at all surprised this escapes you.



> (Granted, I'd probably see it differently if I knew any victim personally and believed them but that's another thing.)



And we're back to your position of ethics by proximity.

It's like you've somehow managed to fail to even be qualified to participate in a conversation involving ethics. That's all kind of messed up.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> Then why were you asking for more that we should be aware of? Just imagine them if you want.
> 
> And I'm wondering what the line is between accusing someone of harassing Zak for saying he should have his awards taken away, then taking issue with even hypothetical points they make, and (literally) showing sympathy for Zak. It's looking awfully blurry when someone works so hard to defend Zak's awards.




Alright here we go.

Youre welcome.

Now it is time for you to quote me defending Zak S.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Alright here we go.
> 
> Youre welcome.
> 
> Now it is time for you to quote me defending Zak S.



Congratulations.

Your quote proves kenmarable understands how analogies are supposed to work.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

Saracenus said:


> This! Yes, This! As a gaming/community organizer I cannot separate creative content from its creator because if I laud the content and DO NOT address the behavior I am tacitly endorsing/enabling their behavior.




If you don't take justice into your own hands, you're an enabler? 



Saracenus said:


> If these accusations were happening in a vacuum I would be more inclined to hold my judgement and see what came of them, but they have not. There has been long documented proof that Zack S. behavior is toxic and contrary to the stated rules of this site (and many others). So, the question is not weather Zack S. should be stripped of his awards here, the real question is why has it taken so damn long to even become a question.




So you need to punish Zak Smith over allegations that you consider credible? Let's say he was convicted of some of the charges made. Then he would have to pay the price that society has agreed upon that should be paid in such cases, right? Prison time, most likely. Do you think private citizens should ADD to that agreed upon price by adding economic and social sanctions on top of that? Would that imply that the official sanctions of sexual harrassment are too low to be satisfactory? Or do we engage in personal justice because it makes us feel good and powerful?

Do you understand why personal sanctions could be interpreted as vigilantism? "Sure, he got convicted and served his time but let's beat the dude bloody nonetheless!" Again, I've got no stakes with Mr. Smith, i hardly know him and we parted ways on unfriendly terms. But do you see where I am getting at and why it could be interpreted as vigilantism? It's not your nor anyone else's place to punish Mr. Smith in our western democracies. Somehow this understanding got lost along the way.

And let's be clear: stripping away awards does not serve the purpose of protecting anyone. Its purpose is to _punish_. Punishing feels good.

Doesn't it?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 12, 2019)

Rygar said:


> Oh look...ENWorld took something posted to a social media site, which doesn't seem to have law enforcement involvment to show whether or not it's accurate, posted it as news, and started a giant politics thread even though the site claims to have a "No Politics" rule.
> 
> One of these days someone's going to sue the bejeesus out of the site owners for their "News" articles.



There's no legal grounds to do so. They're correctly reporting that there was a social media post about something. The original social media posts might be actionable, if they're not provably true, but reporting that someone said a thing, and linking to it, puts ENWorld on pretty stable legal ground.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> And let's be clear: stripping away awards does not serve the purpose of protecting anyone.



Unless you're adult and empathetic enough to realize that by showing people that a specific type of behaviour isn't welcome within a community, at all levels (including something incredibly public, like say ... an award) that you're doing something so that those people who have been victims hopefully feel safer, and would be victims feel like the community has an eye open and is watching their back.

You know ... just for example.

But you've already illustrated that you and empathy are not on speaking terms, so ...


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Where, exactly, is the politics?




How is it that whenever it's women standing up to men behaving badly, it's politics and not appropriate behavior? It's almost like some people have a political agenda to preserve the status quo or something... If I could only put my finger on it.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Congratulations.
> 
> Your quote proves kenmarable understands how analogies are supposed to work.




Thanks. Definitely didn’t want to keep making it about me, but when they say something so easily proved false, it’s hard not to call them on it. But it also proves that I should spend more time with my Ignore List than trying to take these disingenuous arguments seriously.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> And we're back to your position of ethics by proximity.
> 
> It's like you've somehow managed to fail to even be qualified to participate in a conversation involving ethics. That's all kind of messed up.



All ethics are local.  That's why we're talking about one particular rapist, because it impacts our fairly small community.  Logically, we should be far more concerned about the tens of thousands of Burmese soldier rapists who attacked the Rohingya, to name one atrocity in a world filled with them.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 12, 2019)

Oh boy, we're already into the "this needs to be taken to court and decided in court and evidence presented" part of the denial train.

This couldn't have gone more predictably.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

billd91 said:


> How is it that whenever it's women standing up to men behaving badly, it's politics and not appropriate behavior? It's almost like some people have a political agenda to preserve the status quo or something... If I could only put my finger on it.



Yeah, it's almost like certain men don't internalize the fact that abusing women should just be considered universally wrong regardless of politics, but instead attribute it to something "they" do.

I believe there are words for guys like that.


----------



## monsmord (Feb 12, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> But it also proves that I should spend more time with my Ignore List than trying to take these disingenuous arguments seriously.




Absolutely.  The only reason I even see most of that nonsense is through quotes by other folks. 

A few insipid trolls are getting well-fed tonight.  Is there a way to redirect this thread into something more positive, whether supportive of the victims/claimants or on how we raise the bar in our industry?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

kenmarable said:


> Thanks. Definitely didn’t want to keep making it about me, but when they say something so easily proved false, it’s hard not to call them on it. But it also proves that I should spend more time with my Ignore List than trying to take these disingenuous arguments seriously.



I need a t-shirt that says "I went to university for 4 years to get an English degree so I could point out to Internet trolls what an analogy is and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> And many jurisdictions within which courts operate have laws about people being able to make money from books and the like while they are behind bars.
> 
> But not buying anything from him isn't about punishing him. It's about condemning what he's done to others and not wanting to put money in his pocket.




Sure it's about punishing him. No doubt it is. THAT is an open-shut case. If you wanted to condemn him, you would merely say it. Condemnation is a verbal thing. 
But you want him to _feel_ it. That is the punishment. It's the modern vigilantes equivalent of "Let's beat the ********** bloody." 

I have a question for you: suppose someone else was convicted of child molestation and had served his time. Do you see any reason why anyone should give such a guy any money for anything at all? Or should we add to his punishment AFTER he paid the official price (which implies the served time was not enough)?



Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> And we're back to your position of ethics by proximity.
> 
> It's like you've somehow managed to fail to even be qualified to participate in a conversation involving ethics. That's all kind of messed up.




Well, if I had personal information on the people involved and was certain the victim was telling the truth and the victim would know me, then of course I wouldn't buy from Mr. Smith. It would be hurtful to the victim if she found out, understandably so. It would feel like personal betrayal. But she can't have the same expectation from a stranger who doesn't know the case.

You're pretending as if close personal contact doesn't change the situation. This is absurd. Com'on, let's have some higher standards in our conversation than this.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 12, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> All ethics are local.  That's why we're talking about one particular rapist, because it impacts our fairly small community.  Logically, we should be far more concerned about the tens of thousands of Burmese soldier rapists who attacked the Rohingya, to name one atrocity in a world filled with them.




I believe his “ethics by proximity” comment is not in reference to being more focused on a problem in our community, but more in response to the (multiple) statements of “it doesn’t affect anyone I personally know, so it’s not my concern” which takes the idea that ethics are local to an indefensible extreme.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> All ethics are local.  That's why we're talking about one particular rapist, because it impacts our fairly small community.  Logically, we should be far more concerned about the tens of thousands of Burmese soldier rapists who attacked the Rohingya, to name one atrocity in a world filled with them.



There's a difference between "I've spent more attention today on this rapist in the gaming community today because that's what's coursing through my many gaming related social feeds but not enough time focusing on this massacre on the otherside of the world" and some guy who actually jumped into this conversation with (to paraphrase) "this isn't about me or anyone I know, so why should I care?" to be followed with "I don't spend much time looking into this more or giving it credence because it's not about me, but I would if it was about me". And there certainly is a difference in the two when the latter person is taking the time to show up in a thread talking about a specific incident and underscores their need to be central to the situation to be concerned with the subject of what everyone is talking about.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Sure it's about punishing him. No doubt it is. THAT is an open-shut case. If you wanted to condemn him, you would merely say it. Condemnation is a verbal thing.
> But you want him to _feel_ it. That is the punishment. It's the modern vigilantes equivalent of "Let's beat the ********** bloody."
> 
> I have a question for you: suppose someone else was convicted of child molestation and had served his time. Do you see any reason why anyone should give such a guy any money for anything at all? Or should we add to his punishment AFTER he paid the official price (which implies the served time was not enough)?




Well, since Zak hasn't been accused of child molestation, doesn't seem at all contrite about his behavior so it doesn't appear any rehabilitation has happened, and we aren't beating the bastard bloody... I'm having a hard time seeing exactly how excoriating someone online and recommending that his ENnies be rescinded is really all that comparable.

That said, if someone actually pays their penalties and tries to make amends, I extend them some goodwill. I *want* to believe people can improve themselves and will give them a chance to do so. That puts the ball right in Zak's court, but I expect he'll squander any opportunity for redemption.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Unless you're adult and empathetic enough to realize that by showing people that a specific type of behaviour isn't welcome within a community, at all levels (including something incredibly public, like say ... an award) that you're doing something so that those people who have been victims hopefully feel safer, and would be victims feel like the community has an eye open and is watching their back.
> 
> You know ... just for example.
> 
> But you've already illustrated that you and empathy are not on speaking terms, so ...




You got it backwards, I'm afraid: we have given up on people taking justice into their own hands. It leads to lynch mobs. And in modern times to internet lynching mobs. We have laws against sexual harrassment, established procedures to detecting it and agreed upon sanctions. We have those so that private citizens do not go out there and avenge alleged offenses themselves - in whatever form. Boycotts to punish wrong-doing are just vigilantism. You're just not beating someone up physically. 

Do you understand that? And do you understand why it's so important to give up on personal revenge? Because being part of a lynch mob feels gooood. It makes you feel both _righteous_ and _powerful_. And you know what? Lynch mobs _always_ have good reasons. They _always_ just protect the innocent and helpless from the wicked.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Sure it's about punishing him. No doubt it is. THAT is an open-shut case. If you wanted to condemn him, you would merely say it. Condemnation is a verbal thing.



For some people it is, no doubt, but you can't see beyond that because your empathy gas tank is empty so your car doesn't drive very far on the humanity highway.


> But you want him to _feel_ it. That is the punishment. It's the modern vigilantes equivalent of "Let's beat the ********** bloody."



Yes.

Taking away his award and not buying from him is EXACTLY the modern equivalent of beating him to hell. EXACTLY.

(Because nobody goes around beating the crap out of people in this day and age, let alone all the other nonsense inherent to your point.)



> I have a question for you: suppose someone else was convicted of child molestation and had served his time. Do you see any reason why anyone should give such a guy any money for anything at all? Or should we add to his punishment AFTER he paid the official price (which implies the served time was not enough)?



How am I not surprised that you're only able to focus on his "time" and it doesn't even occur to you to mention in your ANALOGY (sideways nod) whether or not he's rehabilitated or remorseful.

Big shock! You've somehow managed to not account for the human aspect of the correctional system.



> Well, if I had personal information on the people involved and was certain the victim was telling the truth and the victim would know me, then of course I wouldn't buy from Mr. Smith. It would be hurtful to the victim if she found out, understandably so. It would feel like personal betrayal. But she can't have the same expectation from a stranger who doesn't know the case.



Again, you prove how foreign empathy is. You're closest attempt at empathy is you talking about what people expect of you and whether or not you can meet those expectations.

Empathy is actually about what you do and feel even when that person will never ever know you did it or felt that way.



> You're pretending as if close personal contact doesn't change the situation. This is absurd. Com'on, let's have some higher standards in our conversation than this.



I'm not pretending it doesn't change the situation. I'm merely stating it's not the defining characteristic of it. Or it shouldn't be. But it does for you. You're presenting a binary model of human interaction that revolves around your personal involvement with the parties involved. There are not very kind words for people who define their social interactions and responses that way. There's also clinical words for such people.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> Do you understand that? And do you understand why it's so important to give up on personal revenge? Because being part of a lynch mob feels gooood. It makes you feel both _righteous_ and _powerful_. And you know what? Lynch mobs _always_ have good reasons. They _always_ just protect the innocent and helpless from the wicked.



What I understand is the fact that the leap to "NOT BUYING A RAPIST'S BOOKS AND TAKING AWAY HIS AWARD IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO LYNCH MOBS" is all sorts of a ed up position to take.

At this point, I'm beginning to question whether you are actually a real person or an AI chatbot programmed to emulate ethics by someone who made the program read every SAW script.


----------



## Alexander Kalinowski (Feb 12, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Well, since Zak hasn't been accused of child molestation, doesn't seem at all contrite about his behavior so it doesn't appear any rehabilitation has happened, and we aren't beating the bastard bloody... I'm having a hard time seeing exactly how excoriating someone online and recommending that his ENnies be rescinded is really all that comparable.
> 
> That said, if someone actually pays their penalties and tries to make amends, I extend them some goodwill. I *want* to believe people can improve themselves and will give them a chance to do so. That puts the ball right in Zak's court, but I expect he'll squander any opportunity for redemption.




That's good. Because I suspect some people would even want to punish felons who have served their time. As to the first point, it's a matter of principle: does stripping of awards serve any other purpose than punishment? If that is the main purpose, it is punishment by private citizens, outside of court, before conviction in court. It's just not physical. It's social, perhaps economical, punishment. But it's punishment. 

It's legal, sure, but how does this not undermine the spirit of our court systems? Don't we now have to reduce sentencing terms because we need to figure in the punishment by private citizens that convicted felons already have to pay? And that ignores that punishment by private citizens is more likely to end in miscarriage of justice than regular trials.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> As to the first point, it's a matter of principle: does stripping of awards serve any other purpose than punishment?



It protects the integrity of the award by not being associated with the perpetrator.



> It's legal, sure, but how does this not undermine the spirit of our court systems?




You mean the same system that routinely imprisons and executes innocent people?

No, not really.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> If you don't take justice into your own hands, you're an enabler?





> "The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people."





> “It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, "Wait on time.”



A common motif raised in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. is about how the silence and idleness of nominally good people enables the persistence of social evils, hindering the realization of justice. 



> So you need to punish Zak Smith over allegations that you consider credible? Let's say he was convicted of some of the charges made. Then he would have to pay the price that society has agreed upon that should be paid in such cases, right? Prison time, most likely. Do you think private citizens should ADD to that agreed upon price by adding economic and social sanctions on top of that? Would that imply that the official sanctions of sexual harrassment are too low to be satisfactory? Or do we engage in personal justice because it makes us feel good and powerful?
> 
> Do you understand why personal sanctions could be interpreted as vigilantism? "Sure, he got convicted and served his time but let's beat the dude bloody nonetheless!" Again, I've got no stakes with Mr. Smith, i hardly know him and we parted ways on unfriendly terms. But do you see where I am getting at and why it could be interpreted as vigilantism? It's not your nor anyone else's place to punish Mr. Smith in our western democracies. Somehow this understanding got lost along the way.
> 
> ...



No, dear Eliphaz, I do not see what you are getting at. You offer only the sound of your own windy words and confuse your verbosity for wisdom. 

While some may delight in the punishment of a foe, I have found that most punishment is accompanied by various senses of melancholy, pity, remorse, regret, and disappointment. It is not about feeling a need for punishment (or the feeling thereof) but about individuals and collective bodies taking an ethical stand in accordance with their principles, making those principles known through their words and actions, and making known what unethical behaviors they will not tolerate in others. Your notion that wrong-doing can only be resolved in the realm of legal criminal justice only illustrates just how woefully deficient your notion of justice is.  But let's be transparent here, this whole "let the courts decide" rhetoric is meant to derail and silence conversation. 



Alexander Kalinowski said:


> You got it backwards, I'm afraid: we have given up on people taking justice into their own hands. It leads to lynch mobs. And in modern times to internet lynching mobs. We have laws against sexual harrassment, established procedures to detecting it and agreed upon sanctions. We have those so that private citizens do not go out there and avenge alleged offenses themselves - in whatever form. Boycotts to punish wrong-doing are just vigilantism. You're just not beating someone up physically.
> 
> Do you understand that? And do you understand why it's so important to give up on personal revenge? Because being part of a lynch mob feels gooood. It makes you feel both _righteous_ and _powerful_. And you know what? Lynch mobs _always_ have good reasons. They _always_ just protect the innocent and helpless from the wicked.



Do you not understand how you are gaslighting here?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> That's good. Because I suspect some people would even want to punish felons who have served their time. As to the first point, it's a matter of principle: does stripping of awards serve any other purpose than punishment? If that is the main purpose, it is punishment by private citizens, outside of court, before conviction in court. It's just not physical. It's social, perhaps economical, punishment. But it's punishment.
> 
> It's legal, sure, but how does this not undermine the spirit of our court systems? Don't we now have to reduce sentencing terms because we need to figure in the punishment by private citizens that convicted felons already have to pay? And that ignores that punishment by private citizens is more likely to end in miscarriage of justice than regular trials.



For someone who claims not to care either way, it amazes me how you have spent an exorbitant amount of time and effort in your arguments to provide him recourse and cushion him from criticism. He is not being lynched. He is not being asked to serve time in prison. The discussion is about revoking his Ennies, which makes your argument all the more absurd to the point of ridicule. Because yes,  [MENTION=6931283]Alexander Kalinowski[/MENTION], as you seem to ignore, such practices are common to the point of banality in even the most lauded of democratic societies. This sort of action is not the exceedingly harsh or cruel and unusual punishment that you imagine. If it were, then we would see such things condemned far more frequently than they are. But society often lauds when non-governmental bodies show a commitment to justice.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> That's good. Because I suspect some people would even want to punish felons who have served their time. As to the first point, it's a matter of principle: does stripping of awards serve any other purpose than punishment? If that is the main purpose, it is punishment by private citizens, outside of court, before conviction in court. It's just not physical. It's social, perhaps economical, punishment. But it's punishment.
> 
> It's legal, sure, but how does this not undermine the spirit of our court systems? Don't we now have to reduce sentencing terms because we need to figure in the punishment by private citizens that convicted felons already have to pay? And that ignores that punishment by private citizens is more likely to end in miscarriage of justice than regular trials.




It does nothing to undermine the spirit of the court system. People have the right to freely associate (or NOT associate) and that applies to honors they extend, such as ENnie awards. If Roman Polanski, despite his artistry, can be booted out of the Academy, Zak can have his Ennie revoked.


----------



## monsmord (Feb 12, 2019)

billd91 said:


> If Roman Polanski, despite his artistry, can be booted out of the Academy, Zak can have his Ennie revoked.






Aldarc said:


> He is not being lynched. He is not being asked to serve time in prison. The discussion is about revoking his Ennies...




And he's not even being censored.  ENnies or no, he can go on publishing what he wants with whomever will work with him, and sell his products on whatever platform will have him, and reach his audience through whatever media he can afford or wrangle.  No one is preventing him from expressing himself, artistically or personally.

The ENnies are a fan-based industry award, a semi-professional accolade.  Well, he has abused, harassed, and bullied people in the industry and vocal gamers.  Former associates' best defense of him has been, "Well, he's an a**hole, but he's not _that_ bad," but are now speaking out against him, going so far as to edit old posts defending him, and breaking professional ties.  People who know him, who have worked with him on projects over years, believe Mandy Morbid and others, and are publicly decrying him, apologizing for not seeing it or not doing more about it.  Whether you do or do not believe it yourself, people working within the industry do, and that's going to impact product development in the future.

As consumers, and as a community of hobby enthusiasts, we absolutely get to determine whom we support and why.  Exactly as the Basebell Hall of Fame did with Pete Rose, and as the Academy did with Roman Polanski.  Zak S has demonstrated time and again, publicly and unequivocally, that he is unprofessional to his peers, demeaning to his detractors, dangerous to work with, and with absolutely so sense of remorse or concern that his behaviors are problematic.  If we continue to endorse him with awards - and with purchases - we affirmatively state that any of this behavior is acceptable IN OUR INDUSTRY.  Just as such activity would get him fired from most jobs, we can "fire him" here.

The only recourse we have as a community to restrict, condemn, and discourage Zak S and people like him is to deny our support. Revoke any existing awards, deny future awards.  Don't review - don't even comment on - his products.  ENWorld can be a powerful voice in encouraging meaningful change that makes gamers and game companies inclusive, safe, and diverse. If it wants to be.  If it values those things.

The ENnies are a reflection of what we believe is the best in gaming.  If Zak S is considered some of the best, it doesn't say much about us.  We can do, and have, better.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> A common motif raised in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. is about how the silence and idleness of nominally good people enables the persistence of social evils, hindering the realization of justice.




Exactly!  We need to stand up against social evil and say, No more!  No more mob justice!


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Exactly!  We need to stand up against social evil and say, No more!  No more mob justice!



Yeah.

Because that's what a man known for rallying people into boycots (among other things) to make a social statement meant.

I mean, I'm hoping you were trying to do something here and that this isn't what you actually think MLK meant, but either way ...


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

billd91 said:


> It does nothing to undermine the spirit of the court system. People have the right to freely associate (or NOT associate) and that applies to honors they extend, such as ENnie awards. If Roman Polanski, despite his artistry, can be booted out of the Academy, Zak can have his Ennie revoked.




To be honest the only reason for stripping someone of their Ennie award would be if they plagiarized their work.


----------



## Eltab (Feb 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Oh boy, we're already into the "this needs to be taken to court and decided in court and evidence presented" part of the denial train.



The section you put in quotes sounds like it would be fully appropriate in this case.
This is not "denial train" this is "the relationships sound THAT bad to have been in".  Professional fact-finders will do better making the judgement (criminal act / civil liability / not actionable) than any of us on an Internet board will.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I don't think public-vote awards should be rescinded, no matter how scuzzy the person. If Vox Day or Varg Vikernes wins an ENnie, it should stand IMO. It says nothing about their moral character.
> 
> As for the OP, I feel sorry for Mandy, and I expect she had good reasons for posting when she did. I appreciate that she feels bad about having facilitated the abuse of others. I don't plan to buy any more of Zak's stuff.




Now this I do disagree with.

If a group awards an industry award, does that not also come with some sort of community standards assumption?  That the person who won the award isn't a serial rapist or abuser seems a pretty low bar.  And, the brand of En World suffers by association as well, remember.  They are the ones who gave an award, and thus accolades, to someone who is apparently not someone we would normally want associated with the hobby.

Taking awards away from such people sends a clear message that the community will not tolerate such behavior.


----------



## bedir than (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> To be honest the only reason for stripping someone of their Ennie award would be if they plagiarized their work.



When you've got lower standards than the NCAA you've got problems.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> To be honest the only reason for stripping someone of their Ennie award would be if they plagiarized their work.




YOU may think so, I disagree. But we’ll see what the ENnies organizers ultimately say about it.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

bedir than said:


> When you've got lower standards than the NCAA you've got problems.




What does Basketball have to do with plagiarism?


----------



## bedir than (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> What does Basketball have to do with plagiarism?



They remove titles and awards for many things. While their standards include things I disagree with, they do have standards.

I hope the ENnies develop behavioral standards. Most sports include character clauses in their awards. Our gaming community can do the same.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> To be honest the only reason for stripping someone of their Ennie award would be if they plagiarized their work.



In your opinion.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

bedir than said:


> They remove titles and awards for many things. While their standards include things I disagree with, they do have standards.
> 
> I hope the ENnies develop behavioral standards. Most sports include character clauses in their awards. Our gaming community can do the same.




Did OJ Simpson get stripped of his NFL Player of the Year award?

Did Oscar Pistorius get stripped of his Olympic Gold medal?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> If you don't take justice into your own hands, you're an enabler?




Yes.  You are.  If you fail to condemn behavior, but, instead, hide behind your door and refuse to take a stand, then, yes, you are an enabler.  Full stop.



> So you need to punish Zak Smith over allegations that you consider credible? Let's say he was convicted of some of the charges made. Then he would have to pay the price that society has agreed upon that should be paid in such cases, right? Prison time, most likely. Do you think private citizens should ADD to that agreed upon price by adding economic and social sanctions on top of that? Would that imply that the official sanctions of sexual harrassment are too low to be satisfactory? Or do we engage in personal justice because it makes us feel good and powerful?




You presume that public condemnation is "punishment".  It's not.  It's simply taking a stand and declaring that no, this behavior is not acceptable and does not belong in our community.   



> Do you understand why personal sanctions could be interpreted as vigilantism? "Sure, he got convicted and served his time but let's beat the dude bloody nonetheless!" Again, I've got no stakes with Mr. Smith, i hardly know him and we parted ways on unfriendly terms. But do you see where I am getting at and why it could be interpreted as vigilantism? It's not your nor anyone else's place to punish Mr. Smith in our western democracies. Somehow this understanding got lost along the way.
> 
> And let's be clear: stripping away awards does not serve the purpose of protecting anyone. Its purpose is to _punish_. Punishing feels good.
> 
> Doesn't it?




Hang on.  Since when does "take away an Ennie" and "don't buy his books" equate to physical violence?  Not buying someone's works or taking away an award is hardly "vigilantism".  Neither of those actions are against the law.  There is no law stating that I MUST buy someone's work.  There is no law saying that we CANNOT take away an award.  These are social actions, not legal ones.  The false equivalency here is not serving your argument very well.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Exactly!  We need to stand up against social evil and say, No more!  No more mob justice!



Silence, Shasarak. No one believes the sincerity of your words here. You lost your moral standing a long while ago in this thread when it became clear that you had no intent to discuss this topic with any good faith. You have repeatedly gaslighted people in this thread, and you will not do that with me here. What's more, a morally good person does not so shallowly manipulate the message of MLK Jr.'s words regarding silence and inaction as you have done.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Did OJ Simpson get stripped of his NFL Player of the Year award?
> 
> Did Oscar Pistorius get stripped of his Olympic Gold medal?



Great. You've named some awards people didn't lose after being horrible people.

Did anyone say that wouldn't be the case?

But did you think that people can't provide examples of people losing their awards after being horrible? Because you've kinda painted yourself into a corner here, logically speaking.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> In your opinion.




You mean:

View attachment 104725


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Did OJ Simpson get stripped of his NFL Player of the Year award?
> 
> Did Oscar Pistorius get stripped of his Olympic Gold medal?




The ENnies are neither the NFL nor the IOC. They can have their own standards.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Silence, Shasarak. No one believes the sincerity of your words here. You lost your moral standing a long while ago in this thread when it became clear that you had no intent to discuss this topic with any good faith. You have repeatedly gaslighted people in this thread, and you will not do that with me here. What's more, a morally good person does not so shallowly manipulate the message of MLK Jr.'s words regarding silence and inaction as you have done.




Stop Gaslighting!


----------



## bedir than (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Did OJ Simpson get stripped of his NFL Player of the Year award?
> 
> Did Oscar Pistorius get stripped of his Olympic Gold medal?



Congratulations, you found two who weren't stripped of their awards.

Multiple universities have had wins vacated, titles removed and players regularly lose scholarships.

Dozens of baseball players are banned from the Hall of Fame.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

billd91 said:


> The ENnies are neither the NFL nor the IOC. They can have their own standards.




Yes, of course they can have their own standards.  I would have thought that the Olympic standards would be a good one to aim for.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Yes, of course they can have their own standards.  I would have thought that the Olympic standards would be a good one to aim for.




You have got to be kidding.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

bedir than said:


> Congratulations, you found two who weren't stripped of their awards.
> 
> Multiple universities have had wins vacated, titles removed and players regularly lose scholarships.
> 
> Dozens of baseball players are banned from the Hall of Fame.




Yeah but are they banned because they cheated?  You know like Lance Armstrong did.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2019)

Alexander Kalinowski said:


> You got it backwards, I'm afraid: we have given up on people taking justice into their own hands. It leads to lynch mobs. And in modern times to internet lynching mobs. We have laws against sexual harrassment, established procedures to detecting it and agreed upon sanctions. We have those so that private citizens do not go out there and avenge alleged offenses themselves - in whatever form. Boycotts to punish wrong-doing are just vigilantism. You're just not beating someone up physically.
> 
> Do you understand that? And do you understand why it's so important to give up on personal revenge? Because being part of a lynch mob feels gooood. It makes you feel both _righteous_ and _powerful_. And you know what? Lynch mobs _always_ have good reasons. They _always_ just protect the innocent and helpless from the wicked.




Wow.  NOw that's doubling down.  Refusing to buy a product because you find that author's personal life distasteful is now the equivalent of a lynch mop murdering someone.  Huh.  

So, when we boycott, say, a shoe company for employing sweat shop labour in horrible conditions, we're just engaging in vigilantism?  Good to know.


----------



## bedir than (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Yes, of course they can have their own standards.  I would have thought that the Olympic standards would be a good one to aim for.



Coooool

Here's hundreds of Olympic medals stripped away 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stripped_Olympic_medals


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

bedir than said:


> Coooool
> 
> Here's hundreds of Olympic medals stripped away
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stripped_Olympic_medals




They got stripped for cheating.

Which is exactly what I said for the Ennies.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> You mean:
> 
> View attachment 104725



No, more like "in your opinion, and your opinion is not founded in anything but your own imagination."

But you should probably give Conrad Black a call. I think he has a word or two to share with you.


----------



## bedir than (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Yeah but are they banned because they cheated?  You know like Lance Armstrong did.



Baylor University's approval of sexual assault got the coach fired and the president resigned in disgrace.

The NCAA and courts are still not done ruling about future impacts.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> So, when we boycott, say, a shoe company for employing sweat shop labour in horrible conditions, we're just engaging in vigilantism?  Good to know.



Yeah.

Apparrently it's just like you hunted down the sweatshop owners and beat them down to bloody pulps in the street.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2019)

Perhaps the best strategy going forward is not letting Shasarak dictate the framing, terms, and content of the discussion?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

bedir than said:


> Baylor University's approval of sexual assault got the coach fired and the president resigned in disgrace.
> 
> The NCAA and courts are still not done ruling about future impacts.




The goal posts are moving too fast to keep up with.  Cant prove one thing, move to the next.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Perhaps the best strategy going forward is not letting Shasarak dictate the framing, terms, and content of the discussion?




Gaslighting.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Gaslighting.



Keep twirling the oversized moustache. I'm sure that will carry you far in life during your obviously very healthy interactions with other humans.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Feb 12, 2019)

Well this is a downer.  I liked a lot of work that Zack S. was doing, mostly because a lot of it was focused on reviving the older D&D modules and smaller rulesets.  His website was something I could enjoy after the unfortunate cessation of Grognardia's blog.  But I can't condone abusive behavior and I won't be visiting Zak's website further.


----------



## monsmord (Feb 12, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Perhaps the best strategy going forward is not letting Shasarak dictate the framing, terms, and content of the discussion?




I can't overstate the many benefits of the Ignore function.  Like, my page count for this thread is only 10.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Perhaps the best strategy going forward is not letting Shasarak dictate the framing, terms, and content of the discussion?




Well, all of his posts just disappeared for me, so I'm assuming he just blocked me, soooooooo ...

(Funny how that happened right after I pointed out Conrad Black to him, no?)


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2019)

Deuce Traveler said:


> Well this is a downer.  I liked a lot of work that Zack S. was doing, mostly because a lot of it was focused on reviving the older D&D modules and smaller rulesets.  His website was something I could enjoy after the unfortunate cessation of Grognardia's blog.  But I can't condone abusive behavior and I won't be visiting Zak's website further.



Thankfully the OSR community is not lacking in excellent writers who do not share Zak's less fortunate proclivities.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 12, 2019)

Eltab said:


> The section you put in quotes sounds like it would be fully appropriate in this case.
> This is not "denial train" this is "the relationships sound THAT bad to have been in".  Professional fact-finders will do better making the judgement (criminal act / civil liability / not actionable) than any of us on an Internet board will.




BLAH BLAH BLAH

That's all you guys ever sound like.  On every forum.  Across the entire internet.  You're all lock-step on this.  It doesn't matter what you username is.  It doesn't matter what forum you're posting on.  It doesn't matter what subject you like to talk about otherwise.

As soon as some accusations come up about some MAN being an abusive, amoral, disgusting piece of human trash no matter how many people come forward, no matter how many other people echo their sentiments, no matter how much proof is thrown in your face it's always the same.  "It's the court's decision we can't 'try them in the court of public opinion' how dare you all form opinions of someone based on the things other people say of them!  DENY DENY BLAH BLAH DISCREDIT THE VICTIMS BLAH BLAH."

You just plug your fingers in your ear and regurgitate all the things you've been trained to say.  We're all sitting here having a conversation about "Holy accusations Batman is this for real?" and you guys all show up like trained performers and put on your little show about how _you_ are the truly enlightened and educated one for refusing to consider anything that you see, anything you're told, anything you read without some kind of court case.

In short: spare me your trite garbage.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Well, all of his posts just disappeared for me, so I'm assuming he just blocked me, soooooooo ...
> 
> (Funny how that happened right after I pointed out Conrad Black to him, no?)




He did the same to me when I called him out as a troll in another thread.

Not that the moderation will take action against him _now_ any more than before.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Feb 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> He did the same to me when I called him out as a troll in another thread.
> 
> Not that the moderation will take action against him _now_ any more than before.



Serial coward behaves cowardly.

Shock, no?


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 12, 2019)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Serial coward behaves cowardly.
> 
> Shock, no?




This is my shocked face.
View attachment 104732


----------



## Rygar (Feb 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> BLAH BLAH BLAH
> 
> That's all you guys ever sound like.  On every forum.  Across the entire internet.  You're all lock-step on this.  It doesn't matter what you username is.  It doesn't matter what forum you're posting on.  It doesn't matter what subject you like to talk about otherwise.
> 
> ...




There's a reason why we have college tracts, extensive training, and carefully designed systems for matters like this.  In fact, there's a reason why these systems have been actively developed over the course of millenia through multiple different civilizations.

It's because most people aren't honest.

I also think it's a fairly safe statement to say that those systems that've been designed over the course of millenia culminating in extensive training and codified systems are an order of magnitude better than an RPG news site posting claims from Facebook and a group of people on an RPG board grabbing torches.

People's lives shouldn't be ruined without going through an impartial process, full stop.  This is how things like Covington happen.  Coincidently, this is also how things like the lawsuits Convington's students seem to be filing happen.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 12, 2019)

Man.  A lot has transpired in this thread since early this morning when I first read it.  It was over 250 comments before I could get home and write my own post...and by then, most of what I wanted to say has already been said (and said more eloquently) by others in this thread.  But I'm more than just sad about this; I'm also angry.

I too believe Mandy, and Jennifer, and Hannah.  And I would support ENWorld re-evaluating (even rescinding) his ENnies, if it is deemed necessary to preserve the prestige of the award.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 12, 2019)

Rygar said:


> There's a reason why we have college tracts, extensive training, and carefully designed systems for matters like this.  In fact, there's a reason why these systems have been actively developed over the course of millenia through multiple different civilizations.
> 
> It's because most people aren't honest.
> 
> ...




Oh look, another one.

You know, the worst part about you and your ilk is that you're _boring_.  No new arguments.  You never adjust for the circumstances.  You don't admit that this case or that case actually turned out to be what everyone said it was.  It's just the same thing over and over again.  I have more interesting conversations with Alexa.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 12, 2019)

https://www.theonion.com/woman-probably-just-made-up-rape-story-in-order-to-get-1819578559

*Woman Probably Just Made Up Rape Story In Order To Get Threatening Emails*

CHARLOTTE, NC—Insisting the alleged victim must have an ulterior motive, numerous residents told reporters Thursday that local woman Beth Hutchins probably made up her story about being raped just so she could receive a barrage of threatening emails. “I’m sure she saw the opportunity to get tons of vicious, verbally abusive messages from complete strangers, so she just decided to lie and say she was raped,” said area resident Richard Becker, adding that the 28-year-old most likely invented all the horrific details of her purported assault as a cry for anonymous commenters to relentlessly attack everything about her, from her character and body to her drinking habits and sexual history. “She’s obviously full of . She plays the victim card and then—poof—just like that, she’s instantly showered with hate-filled posts on her Facebook page calling her an ugly slut and encouraging her to kill herself. That’s exactly what she wants.” When informed that Hutchins had filed a police report, undergone a physical examination, and subjected herself to multiple questionings by authorities, Becker shook his head and told reporters it just goes to show how far some women will go to have their personal information leaked online so that crazed strangers can come to their homes and intimidate them in person.


----------



## hoshisabi (Feb 12, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> As soon as some accusations come up about some MAN being an abusive, amoral, disgusting piece of human trash no matter how many people come forward, no matter how many other people echo their sentiments, no matter how much proof is thrown in your face it's always the same. "It's the court's decision we can't 'try them in the court of public opinion' how dare you all form opinions of someone based on the things other people say of them! DENY DENY BLAH BLAH DISCREDIT THE VICTIMS BLAH BLAH."





For YEARS we've been reading about poor behavior from Zak S. For YEARS. In 2014 people talked about it, people were ready to boycott 5th edition D&D when it was released because of his history AT THAT POINT.

They gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2014.

The controversy didn't stop. Ok, perhaps he's being targetted by people with a vendetta.

Then someone that had previously defended him steps forward and says "he abused me, and he used me as a defense against criticism, many of the things that I supposedly said were actually him using my name and likeness as a sockpuppet account."

Since one of the behaviors that he has been criticized of, and according to many people, proven to have done, is to use sockpuppet accounts, those accusations of harassment via sockpuppets seems VERY LIKELY. 

So... you want hard evidence. How about this

https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1095079170244194304

Want people to dig up more?

I mean, dude. The bad behavior isn't new, just the fact that he was abusive in real life to the one person that seemed to soften his persona. And that's deeply troubling, because it alters his story from just being a caustic individual online who otherwise cares for this other person through her hospital stays and illnesses.

Into just a more cliche villain.

I mean hell, don't need to prove it. Even many of his defenders had a difficult time with many of his actions. But you're not going to get a much clearer case than this.

So cut out the "where's da proooooooooof?"

It's kind of ... immaterial. He has not just been granted the benefit of the doubt, he's RELIED ON IT FOR YEARS.

Ain't no sweat just rescinding that.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 12, 2019)

Rygar said:


> There's a reason why we have college tracts, extensive training, and carefully designed systems for matters like this.  In fact, there's a reason why these systems have been actively developed over the course of millenia through multiple different civilizations.
> 
> It's because most people aren't honest.
> 
> ...




Ok, counterexample - Google Larry Nassar to see just how well those wonderful impartial systems worked until 1 woman was brave enough to go public. (Sounds familiar) 

Those impartial systems supposedly “developed over the course of millennia” (WTH does that nonsense even mean???) failed, repeatedly and in multiple places. Multiple failures at the university, police departments, Olympic committees, businesses, etc. It was only after an abuser (who was such a talented, prominent member of the community, that surely he can’t be that bad), got away with it for year after year that public attention was needed to finally bring about accountability. The crimes may be different, but the systemic failures and need for public outcry for any accountability to finally happen sound eerily familiar.


----------



## EthanSental (Feb 12, 2019)

I’m glad Morrus/ENworld hasn’t jumped in too quickly and make decision in the heat of the moment. Let the initial storm of social media calm a bit then make a decision. 

As for me, the boycotting of buying his products is a non-factor as I didnt know who him before now, what’s he done in the industry or outside, and looking at his creations don’t appeal to me.  I’m probably outside the norm in that I haven’t bought any product that has the “ENnies winner” tag so it doesn’t hold much weight in my book but again, what ever ENworld decides is probably going to be okay with me...just waiting to see before I decide either way down the road.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2019)

One evening.  I step away from keyboard from one evening.  Sheesh.

We'll review.  I'm likely recommending some folks be dis-invited from posting on EN World, either for a while, or permanently.  

In the meantime, folks take a breather.  Thread closed.  Morrus can reopen it if he likes, but I don't think further discussion without a babysitter will be fruitful.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2019)

This thread was really sad.  I've given one recommendation for a permanent ban out of it - that will be discussed among the staff.  And I'm on the fence about a couple of other bits.

But, perhaps this is time for a different note. 

I cannot change the minds or behavior of trolls, or those deep into the men's rights philosophy, here.  These people have emotional connection to their behaviors that cannot be broken by a statement on the internet. But, we can make a couple of points for those who are more well-meaning.

Some of you are really well meaning, but forget that you also have no hope of changing the minds of those deeply attached to their behaviors.  It almost seems like you forgot that, or you decided that you'd bash your heads against them anyway until mods stepped in, just to prove a point that you are as stubborn and committed as they, or something.  Either was an ill-conceived strategy.  You should not need someone like me to save you from the ninnyhammers of the world.  You can recognize them yourself, and *not engage*.  Use the ignore list if you need it to enforce a bit of self-discipline in that regard, as that is what the feature is for.  These people only thrive in an environment where their positions are given the dignity of a response.  Imagine the lot of them, reaching desperately out to aggravate you, and their words wafting away on a thin wind, impacting nobody - how much would *that* cheese them off? 

By which I mean, *DO NOT FEED THE DARNED TROLLS, PEOPLE!*  It isn't that hard to disengage after you realize that someone's not actually thinking about what you write.  Doing so will do you, and the site, a whole lot of good.  Self-control, and self-policing, folks.  




There's another group of you who may be well-meaning, but have failed on perspective.  You were spending a whole lot of energy defending men from the entirely theoretical and relatively small risk of false accusation, and precious little on women who have already suffered years of abuse.  Yes, Zak might get his Ennie stripped.  Poor guy.  Meanwhile, the rape victim does not seem to register to you.  Your priorities, and ability to assess risk, are off.  

Women have their lives ruined by rape and abuse every day, by the hundreds (800+ sexual assaults per day in the US).  Men are ruined by false accusations... hypothetically, maybe occasionally?  The low hanging fruit is in protecting women from the real risk of abuse they live under.  Keep your eye on the known, well-documented, frequent problem, and make that unacceptable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 12, 2019)

> Women have their lives ruined by rape and abuse every day, by the hundreds (800+ sexual assaults per day in the US). Men are ruined by false accusations... hypothetically, maybe occasionally? The low hanging fruit is in protecting women from the real risk of abuse they live under. Keep your eye on the known, well-documented, frequent problem, and make that unacceptable.




Amplifying this point:
Estimated % of rape reports that are ultimately deemed false in USA according to scholars and law enforcement agencies: *10% or less*

Estimated % of rapes that go unreported in USA according to scholars and law enforcement agencies: *67% or more*

Being concerned for both sides of the equation is fine.  But if you are looking at an alleged rape or sexual assault as a complete outsider with no information beyond what you see in the media, the odds definitely favor the probability of one conclusion over the other.


----------

