# What the heck is going on with the professional RPG industry in regards to Zak S?



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Strangely enough comments weren't enabled on the news article over Zak S being removed from the PHB. I'm not sure why (I don't come here enough to know whether that's because of the type of article it is or not).

We've recently had a blog post with new allegations against Zak S (a.k.a Zak Zabbath a.k.a Zak Smith). I'm not surprised to see a new round of allegations against him. This isn't the first time he's weathered such accusations. Although unlike some previous allegations this one seems to have no evidence (which is fair enough. Someone shouldn't have to be a forensic scientist to alert people of the way they've been treated).

However supported only by an allegation the RPG industry has acted swiftly and with vengeance. The biggest seller of RPG products is refusing to carry Zak's work. And WotC have now removed the credit Zak had from the 5e PHB.

Are we as consumers okay at the professional RPG industry refusing to do business with someone over a mere allegation? Because I can see this quickly leading to some innocent people hurt sooner or later. 

If they are acting on more than the allegation, and are in fact reacting to known behaviour of Zak S or so strongly suspected behaviour that they feel confident in their current reaction: What the heck was the RPG industry doing up until now? If Zak S is so bad that he should have every mention of him removed from the RPG industry, why didn't they do something before now? I certainly wasn't surprised to see the most recent allegation. So why the heck are they pretending to be surprised? And if they didn't have any suspicions, why are they taking such drastic action against someone without any legal proceedings occurring?

If Ed Greenwood or Mike Mearls get similar allegations made against them, will they be treated the same as Zak S? And if not, then why not?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2019)

What's going on? In some ways, the chickens are coming home to roost. The question might be better posed as "Why is it finally happening now?" And I think you have the broader culture to thank for that. 

But as far as reacting to allegations - do you really think the preponderance of complaints against Zak S is just "an allegation"? Or did things finally get to the point where people could no longer ignore them or brush them off without really feeling queasy or being held accountable? The D&D community is more feminized that it has ever been according to the polls and it's the 800 lb gorilla of RPGs. It seems to be doing well, in part, as a result of that growth of female gamers. Nobody wants to alienate that hard-won segment of the market by turning a deaf ear to complaints.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2019)

Without delving into the veracity of the current or even any past allegations, I think that perhaps a lot of this has to do with his generally toxic and combative attitude. If he hadn’t rubbed so many people the wrong way over so many years he might find himself with more support. 

Honestly, and I say this as someone who thinks his rpg work has been very compelling, his online behavior was so awful that it’s hard to imagine him being radically different in person.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 20, 2019)

In the end, Zak treated everyone like crap.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 20, 2019)

hmmm.....not an expert, but...AFAICT most allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct don't actually go to court, but that won't keep you from getting fired (or not, depending on the company attitude) for a "gig" based industry like rpgs, this is what it looks like.

I think, IME, etc. etc.

As a side note, and I'm not calling out anyone around here specifically, the cry of "but he could lose his job!" is often trotted out like its the single worst fate that it could befall somebody. I find that odd, especially in cases of violent activity. I mean, working well with people requires some positive personality traits and behavior (as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] alluded to) it shouldn't be surprising or objectionable when someone who fails to exhibit those traits is shown the door, especially when they exhibit profoundly negative traits as well. ::shrug::


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 20, 2019)

Oh, look, a fresh and new take on the topic where a low-post-count user is suddenly supremely concerned with the implications of MEN being accused of bad behaviour online.  I'm certain this will be an exciting and original take on the subject.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2019)

Not all allegations are created equal.  Some are more substantial and believable than others.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> Without delving into the veracity of the current or even any past allegations, I think that perhaps a lot of this has to do with his generally toxic and combative attitude. If he hadn’t rubbed so many people the wrong way over so many years he might find himself with more support.
> 
> Honestly, and I say this as someone who thinks his rpg work has been very compelling, his online behavior was so awful that it’s hard to imagine him being radically different in person.



But his online behaviour was a known factor years ago. I knew about it back when the PHB was released (which was when I first learned of the allegations against him). No new facts have come to light with the most recent allegations. It's just a different person making the same claims about what he has done against them. Either he was guilty all along and the professional RPG community knew (or should have known. Given how widespread the allegations against Zak S have been, it's quite hard for them to claim they didn't know) or they genuinely believed they weren't true, in which case they're acting very quickly against someone who they had previously investigated and believed to be innocent. What new evidence has come to light that made everyone suddenly change their mind? AFAIK none.



billd91 said:


> But as far as reacting to allegations - do you really think the preponderance of complaints against Zak S is just "an allegation"? Or did things finally get to the point where people could no longer ignore them or brush them off without really feeling queasy or being held accountable?



Nothing new or surprising was released in the latest allegations against Zak S. WotC and RPGNow pretending they are surprising and acting in a manner completely inconsistent with their previous actions (especially for WotC which went so far as to say none of the allegations against Zak S were true) seems very convenient and very disingenuous.



billd91 said:


> The question might be better posed as "Why is it finally happening now?" And I think you have the broader culture to thank for that.
> ....
> The D&D community is more feminized that it has ever been according to the polls and it's the 800 lb gorilla of RPGs. It seems to be doing well, in part, as a result of that growth of female gamers. Nobody wants to alienate that hard-won segment of the market by turning a deaf ear to complaints.



What this seems to be saying is that WotC felt it was completely okay to dismiss claims against an abuser because there wasn't enough negative press associated with doing so? That paints WotC in a pretty despicable light.

WotC's actions appear to be purely damage control. They don't care whether or not Zak S has done the things that that have been claimed. Becoming associated with him is now no longer profitable and so they are doing everything they can to remove all ties they previously had to him. Accompanying such capitalistic  activity with claims of "we genuinely care about the safety of the community and are doing this because of that" is disgusting.

WotC's actions have betrayed no ACTUAL care about the safety of the community. Not back in 2014 when they felt it was okay to put Zak S in the credits despite all of the allegations against him. And not now when they're removing his name from the PHB despite there being no change in the evidence against Zak S in the past 4.5 years. Associating with Zak S was a move to associate with a "popular" member of the geek community (he has his followers and certainly had them in 2014). It's why we got the playtest Acquisitions podcast. It was seen as profitable to be associated with Penny Arcade back then. They have wrung all profit they could in their association with Zak S. Now that there is no longer any benefit (and in fact a detriment) they are disassociating themselves with him and removing records in their published works that demonstrates they were ever associated.

I fail to see how WotC is demonstrating any actual care for the safety of the community in their actions and find their behaviour to be particularly despicable.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Not all allegations are created equal.  Some are more substantial and believable than others.



So your saying the previous allegations aren't credible? What's different about this most recent one? Why is this victim more worthy of our concern then previous victims?



Immortal Sun said:


> Oh, look, a fresh and new take on the topic where a low-post-count user is suddenly supremely concerned with the implications of MEN being accused of bad behaviour online. I'm certain this will be an exciting and original take on the subject.



I use to have a different user account over here. I'm not really sure how I ended up with this account. Link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?6749563-JohnLynch



Ratskinner said:


> hmmm.....not an expert, but...AFAICT most allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct don't actually go to court, but that won't keep you from getting fired (or not, depending on the company attitude) for a "gig" based industry like rpgs, this is what it looks like.
> 
> I think, IME, etc. etc.



I'd be concerned if my place of employment fired someone because their girlfriend/boyfriend stood at the corner of a shopping centre and yelled about abuse the person had done to them. I'm not sure what American law or attitude is towards this though. You lot have some very.... "interesting" ideas and laws when it comes to employment and firing people without cause.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Ratskinner said:


> As a side note, and I'm not calling out anyone around here specifically, the cry of "but he could lose his job!" is often trotted out like its the single worst fate that it could befall somebody. I find that odd, especially in cases of violent activity. I mean, working well with people requires some positive personality traits and behavior (as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] alluded to) it shouldn't be surprising or objectionable when someone who fails to exhibit those traits is shown the door, especially when they exhibit profoundly negative traits as well. ::shrug::



But his behaviour isn't new nor is it surprising.

Also: choosing not to work with someone is one thing. But should these organisations remove all mention of their previous association? Either Zak S deserved to be in the credits because of the work he performed for WotC or he didn't. It'd be like removing Kevin Spacey from the credits of all movies he's ever appeared in.

The Zak S situation brings something very disturbing to light. I'm concerned at either:
* What threshold of allegations OneBookshelf is going to set before they pull the plug and refuse to do business with someone; OR
* How many more known abusers we have in the community (Zak S's behaviour is certainly not surprising) and how long it will take OneBookshelf and the rest of the industry before it decides to safeguard our safety by excising them from the industry.

Either Zak S was a known abuser and the industry has done nothing. Or a facebook post accompanied by no evidence is all that's required to have someone removed from the biggest seller of online RPG products. Either way I think OneBookshelf and WotC need to set some guidelines as to who they will and won't do business with and why they're only setting those guidelines now. Or else we're going to have innocent people thrown out of the industry at the whims of these organisations.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> But his online behaviour was a known factor years ago. I knew about it back when the PHB was released (which was when I first learned of the allegations against him). No new facts have come to light with the most recent allegations. It's just a different person making the same claims about what he has done against them. Either he was guilty all along and the professional RPG community knew (or should have known. Given how widespread the allegations against Zak S have been, it's quite hard for them to claim they didn't know) or they genuinely believed they weren't true, in which case they're acting very quickly against someone who they had previously investigated and believed to be innocent. What new evidence has come to light that made everyone suddenly change their mind? AFAIK none.




I think you’re making a binary situation where that’s not really how things work. There have been several more years of toxic online behavior sine the earlier allegations. And now there are MORE allegations. I think it’s reasonable for more allegations to become a bigger deal. Especially combined with 5 more years of Zak pissing industry folks off and 5 more years of the hobby expanding and reaching new people and 5 more years of social progress.

Conditions were different this time around, so the result will be different.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> I'd be concerned if my place of employment fired someone because their girlfriend/boyfriend stood at the corner of a shopping centre and yelled about abuse the person had done to them. I'm not sure what American law or attitude is towards this though. You lot have some very.... "interesting" ideas and laws when it comes to employment and firing people without cause.




Even weirder is how much they vary from state to state. However, since at least the 80's, Americans have increasingly become enamored of the idea that our poor beleaguered corporations can't really do anything wrong and after all won't the market sort it out in the end. However, I was specifically talking about abuses that take place within the workplace. Its quite unusual for a person to get in trouble at work for a situation such as you are describing, to my knowledge. Significantly, it can vary quite a bit from corporations that generally ignore all accusations to those that take them very seriously. That said, if your job is particularly public (news anchor, director, etc.) that can change, if your reputation becomes a liability. Also, for an rpg industry person, a convention _is_ "work", IMO.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2019)

Are we moving from defending Zak to pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those that are now so anxious to show they are condemning him?

I might be aboard such an argument depending on how it is made or meant, but I don't imagine that it would do any good to make it here.  Make it on a blog post if you like on your own forum.  Don't borrow someone's soap box to do it.  I don't suggest that as any sort of moral obligation on your part, but as a practical matter.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think you’re making a binary situation where that’s not really how things work. There have been several more years of toxic online behavior sine the earlier allegations. And now there are MORE allegations. I think it’s reasonable for more allegations to become a bigger deal. Especially combined with 5 more years of Zak pissing industry folks off and 5 more years of the hobby expanding and reaching new people and 5 more years of social progress.
> 
> Conditions were different this time around, so the result will be different.



So does the industry have a threshold on when it takes action? Is 1 allegation sufficient? 5? 20? Because I doubt very many people were surprised by this recent news. Definitely sadenned. But unfortunately not surprised. How many other professionals have met this threshold but are simply flying under the radar until the next lot of bad press swings their way? Because bad press seems to be the only thing to galvanise WotC and OneBookshelf into action thus far.



Ratskinner said:


> Also, for an rpg industry person, a convention _is_ "work", IMO.



Abuses that occur at work are certainly something that an employer should investigate and action as appropriate (I also believe most work places would refer the matter to police wherever they can. Something I doubt WotC or OneBookshelf are doing. So trying to describe this as a "work place incident" isn't the most helpful for the discussion).

But if we are going down that road: What is the industry doing in regards to Bill Webb? From what I read at Enworld that had witnesses! Has he been at a PaizoCon since the allegations came to light? Will his work be removed from OneBookshelf? If not, what's the threshold/policy? Are people comfortable with that threshold/policy?


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Are we moving from defending Zak to pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those that are now so anxious to show they are condemning him?
> 
> I might be aboard such an argument depending on how it is made or meant, but I don't imagine that it would do any good to make it here.  Make it on a blog post if you like on your own forum.  Don't borrow someone's soap box to do it.  I don't suggest that as any sort of moral obligation on your part, but as a practical matter.



I'm not defending him. I'm arguing that if these organisations NOW believe the claims against Zak S, why didn't they before? The original title of this thread was much more inflammatory towards WotC but I toned it down.

As for telling me to leave this forum: That's not especially inclusive. If Morrus or his mods want me to leave, they have the power to do so and they've shown they will not hold back in doing so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Just a quick hit because I’m busy (in no particular order):

1) many states do not require a “cause” for firing unless a contractual provision states otherwise.  However, _if a reason is given_ that is illegal (“X is being fired because X is Jewish”) or there exists evidence that an illegal purpose was used, the employer can still get nuked in court.

So, the long & short of it is this: employers need not wait for a court case to cut ties with an employee who has exposed them to unfavorable publicity.

2) What you may have missed is not a change in Z’s behavior, but a recent and fairly sweeping lowering of the tolerance level in American society for some of the behavior alleged.  And in the light of actual crime stats, odds are extremely good that Z is guilty of more than one act of which he has been accused.

3) people who become notorious for all kinds of reasons get honors & credits rescinded all the time, going back eons.  Even happened to an Egyptian Pharaoh shortly after his death.  I can think of a Nobel prize winner (racist), a reknown outdoorsman (serial killer), athletes (cheaters & gamblers) and others who have been booted from organizations and stripped of all kinds of accolades and privileges unrelated to their offenses.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> But his behaviour isn't new nor is it surprising.
> 
> Also: choosing not to work with someone is one thing. But should these organisations remove all mention of their previous association? Either Zak S deserved to be in the credits because of the work he performed for WotC or he didn't. It'd be like removing Kevin Spacey from the credits of all movies he's ever appeared in.




Well, it wouldn't for a variety reasons. Two of which that spring immediately to mind are contractual agreements with the Screen Actors' Guild, and the (perhaps odd) ways that intellectual property can be owned by your employer. I know many people who can't even work on a potentially profitable project in the garage on weekends without their employer having the right to confiscate it. I don't know what contractual relationship Zak had with WotC, but I would not be surprised his contract didn't make his thought on 5e WotC property the moment he had them. (I'm not defending such nonsense, but there it seems to be the way the law works.)



John Lynch2 said:


> Either Zak S was a known abuser and the industry has done nothing. Or a facebook post accompanied by no evidence is all that's required to have someone removed from the biggest seller of online RPG products. Either way I think OneBookshelf and WotC need to set some guidelines as to who they will and won't do business with and why they're only setting those guidelines now. Or else we're going to have innocent people thrown out of the industry at the whims of these organisations.




hmmm...I think you're leaving out the possibility of Zak being an "unknown abuser". That is, it seems that a lot of folks who knew him (I don't, I'm only going by the posts I've seen) didn't have a high opinion of his personality. So, they might think something along the lines of "Well, that guy is a jerk, but he seems to do good work (or has a big following, or whatever), and I don't really know that he's done anything all that terrible." That is, give him the benefit of the doubt (perhaps this is another odd American cultural trait). At least until something happens that either makes it obvious that he is as terrible as you suspected or that further association with him will damage your brand (regardless of your belief in the accusations).*

The only problem with those guidelines your suggesting is that its like asking someone if they are Chaotic Evil. "Are you a rapist?" - "No I was acquitted on all 27 charges." Alternatively, you could have some kind of "reputation protection" clause, like the NFL and NASCAR have for their participants. However, those have their own foibles, because reputation is a rather curious beast and subject to some rather fickle interpretation. (The NFL, in particular is noted for its rather odd and inconsistent interpretations of what will and will not harm its reputation.)


*Which is decidedly not to say that I think a corporation wouldn't happily let a vile person make them money until it hurts their reputation somehow, and then disingenuously claim ignorance. I would be surprised if that isn't the norm, in fact. I just think its not quite as binary as you're putting it.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Abuses that occur at work are certainly something that an employer should investigate and action as appropriate (I also believe most work places would refer the matter to police wherever they can. Something I doubt WotC or OneBookshelf are doing. So trying to describe this as a "work place incident" isn't the most helpful for the discussion).




I'm not. If you follow the chain back, you'll note that the comment that got me into this discussion was a general comment about responses to abuse allegations, not this one in particular. I don't have any statistics at hand, but my work puts me in contact with many corporations and gov't agencies. I very much doubt that workplaces routinely refer such matters to the police, especially if there is any chance that they can get away with minimal negative attention and have one of the people (accuser or abuser) quietly leave.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> But if we are going down that road: What is the industry doing in regards to Bill Webb? From what I read at Enworld that had witnesses! Has he been at a PaizoCon since the allegations came to light? Will his work be removed from OneBookshelf? If not, what's the threshold/policy? Are people comfortable with that threshold/policy?




Regarding Bill Webb, I know of two local but well-regarded conventions that have recinded “guest of honor”-type designations from him. And I expect convention organizers will continue to be pressured to be more circumspect about such honors.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 20, 2019)

I will lay it out to in this manner. Zak had a long history of abusive and bullying behaviors that included gaslighting others (even fellow industry professionals). The recent revelations were too detailed and descriptive, not to mention consistent of someone who regularly engages in physical and mentally abusive behavior. The fact that multiple woman corroborated this story added weight to the likelihood of truth. Private businesses (and individuals behind them) are now making public statements that they choose to believe the ladies and are therefore severing all ties with Zak. 

Don’t like it? Too bad. Don’t support those those companies. I doubt they will miss you.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Oh, look, a fresh and new take on the topic where a low-post-count user is suddenly supremely concerned with the implications of MEN being accused of bad behaviour online.  I'm certain this will be an exciting and original take on the subject.




*Look's at [MENTION=6981174]Immortal Sun[/MENTION]'s post count*

While funny, there is a certain level of irony here.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> If Ed Greenwood or Mike Mearls get similar allegations made against them, will they be treated the same as Zak S? And if not, then why not?




In the current toxic environment, yes they would be treated the same way except that the Anti-Forgotten Realmers will finally have an excuse for their bad taste.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> So does the industry have a threshold on when it takes action? Is 1 allegation sufficient? 5? 20? Because I doubt very many people were surprised by this recent news. Definitely sadenned. But unfortunately not surprised. How many other professionals have met this threshold but are simply flying under the radar until the next lot of bad press swings their way? Because bad press seems to be the only thing to galvanise WotC and OneBookshelf into action thus far.




Of course there is not a "threshold" and nor should there be.  How ludicrous would that be?  "Oh, well, you've only been accused three times, so, well, I guess it's okay"   

And, yup, it's society which galvanizes action.  Always has been.


> /snip
> 
> But if we are going down that road: What is the industry doing in regards to Bill Webb? From what I read at Enworld that had witnesses! Has he been at a PaizoCon since the allegations came to light? Will his work be removed from OneBookshelf? If not, what's the threshold/policy? Are people comfortable with that threshold/policy?




You are looking for a one size fits all answer to an extremely complicated issue.  You are not going to find it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> In the current toxic environment, yes they would be treated the same way except that the Anti-Forgotten Realmers will finally have an excuse for their bad taste.




LOL, "toxic" that's funny.

At least, I hope you meant that as a joke.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> LOL, "toxic" that's funny.




Of course I am not talking about you being toxic.

Its like when the Trolls tried to come for Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Ah, I pity the fools.


----------



## monsmord (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> As for telling me to leave this forum: That's not especially inclusive. If Morrus or his mods want me to leave, they have the power to do so and they've shown they will not hold back in doing so.





I hope that this was not Celebrim's intent.  I won't put words in their mouth.  But I would ask - what are you hoping to accomplish here?

If it's to spark debate, and you don't feel the last mega-thread on Zak had enough to say on the matter, it might help if you were to offer your own opinions on the problem instead of repeating the questions across posts; offer your answers, we can talk about how our answers may differ, or how they may not, and we'll get some real discussion going on.  (Hint: that last thread got heated, as you might expect, hence some of the reaction to your posts here is predicated on that experience.  You should check out that thread in full if you hope to make your thread productive and not get closed.)

If you're here for actual factual answers, you won't get them in this forum.  Folks here have lots of opinions on it; you'll get those by the dozens.  But not actual answers - WotC, OneBookShelf, GenCon, Onyx Path, White Wolf, Frog God Games, and all the other organizations even remotely tied to this issue aren't looking at this thread, and won't be popping in to offer insight or official statements.

As to your very good point about how much the industry's "old boy network" may need to be dragged kicking and screaming into facing down its problems, especially in terms of #MeToo (or diversity in general), you're largely preaching to the choir here.  And while your opinions are as relevant here as anyone else's, they're just as invisible to the people who matter.

To Celebrim's point, exposure across multiple platforms is one way of increasing awareness of the problem.  Publicly calling out those who enabled this nonsense can be an instrument of change, but ENWorld has already done so (and had an impact, from what I can see). Starting another thread on the topic here isn't going to accomplish anything, whereas putting these questions/complaints in your blog, Twitter, or whatever other social media you frequent will help broaden the reach of the message.  So, not a "get out of this forum," but "your voice will be louder and potentially more impactful if you take it to your followers elsewhere."

In my opinion, the only reason we're seeing the scope of industry action now is the scope of consumer/fan reaction to the latest iteration of allegations, fueled by the larger #MeToo movement.  (Hit them in the wallet - works every time.)  If ENWorld were the only place these things were talked about, nothing would be getting done.  So preach it to all corners!  In addition to posting here, write the publishers and cons and vendors, publish some open letters, join or organize boycotts, get people talking in places where they haven't heard about all this.  The more bad press these folks get, the more they'll have to come clean and clean house.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

A _personal_ observation: it seems to me that allegations of sexually-related offenses are the ones that _really_ brings out the citizenry concerned with ruining reputations. Even though the rates of false reporting for such crimes is roughly the same as (or lower than) the rates for robberies, assaults, murders, and other violent crimes.  

You seldom see people outside the accused’s family and circle of friends pooh-poohing allegations of violent crime.  There aren’t people going online to defend the reps of possible robbers, thugs and killers.

But accused sex offenders? “Why should I believe mere allegations?  I know it’s a bunch of them, but nothing was ever proven in court.”  Etc.

Every.
Damn.
Time.

It could also be misperception on my part, but the probability of people rising to the defense of _males_ accused of sex crimes seems higher than for similarly accused _women_.  I simply can’t remember any pushback over the reputations of women accused of being sexual predators.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It could also be misperception on my part, but the probability of people rising to the defense of _males_ accused of sex crimes seems higher than for similarly accused _women_.  I simply can’t remember any pushback over the reputations of women accused of being sexual predators.




I saw a statistic that said that 40% of men would suffer from domestic abuse at some stage in their life and yet if the Police turn up at your place after your partner beats you up it is the man that gets arrested every single time.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

On the question of "threshold".

Well, despite my earlier claims, there is actually a pretty simple threshold for businesses.  Is associating my product with you costing me money?  If yes, then, well, I no longer want to associate my product with you.

So, really, questions about "why didn't they do anything earlier?" basically miss that point.  They didn't do anything earlier because it wasn't hurting business.  Now, it is.  So, now they do something.

 [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - the part that REALLY baffles me, is in the last several times this has come up, there hasn't actually been any real discussion of the veracity of the charges.  They've pretty much been open record - yup he got drunk in the bar, yup, he chased a woman through the hotel, yup, he assaulted a security guard.  Not a whole lot of secrets there.  Same in this case.

Same in every other damn case that seems to come up regarding gaming.  

Yet, every single time, it's "well, we can't do any more than wring our hands because we don't know the facts".    What?  Bwuh?  We KNOW the facts this time and pretty much every previous time as well.  The facts are public record.

Why is this even a discussion?


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> *Look's at [MENTION=6981174]Immortal Sun[/MENTION]'s post count*
> 
> While funny, there is a certain level of irony here.




Except I'm not complaining about the "dangerous societal implications" of men being called out on their bad behavior.

If you're not familiar with _why_ this looks a certain way you could ya know, have asked if I have experience with the subject.  Maybe lack of a a bazillion posts doesn't mean anything.  Maybe a billion posts also means nothing.  But speaking from experience, when a brand new account starts off their posting by commenting on political issues and taking a _very particular stance_ on certain subjects, you gotta suspect a duck really is a duck.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> So does the industry have a threshold on when it takes action? Is 1 allegation sufficient? 5? 20? Because I doubt very many people were surprised by this recent news. Definitely sadenned. But unfortunately not surprised. How many other professionals have met this threshold but are simply flying under the radar until the next lot of bad press swings their way? Because bad press seems to be the only thing to galvanise WotC and OneBookshelf into action thus far.




I don’t thibk there are hard and fast rules for this stuff. Times are changing and people are more connected, so this kind of news spreads farther and wider and much more quickly. Again, this is one of the reasons that this instance seems to have resulted in stronger consequences s for Zak S. Even over the last 5 years, there’s been a significant shift in how these situations are handled.

And over the last several years there seems to have been a strong push for improvement inside the industry, at concentions and at publishers. Hopefully, that continues.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> We've recently had a blog post with new allegations against Zak S (a.k.a Zak Zabbath a.k.a Zak Smith). I'm not surprised to see a new round of allegations against him. This isn't the first time he's weathered such accusations. Although unlike some previous allegations this one seems to have no evidence (which is fair enough. Someone shouldn't have to be a forensic scientist to alert people of the way they've been treated).
> 
> However supported only by an allegation the RPG industry has acted swiftly and with vengeance. The biggest seller of RPG products is refusing to carry Zak's work. And WotC have now removed the credit Zak had from the 5e PHB.
> 
> Are we as consumers okay at the professional RPG industry refusing to do business with someone over a mere allegation? Because I can see this quickly leading to some innocent people hurt sooner or later.



"Mere allegations" assumes that the FOUR people who have spoken up against Zak are liars and all part of some shadowy organized and coordinated conspiracy-campaign that exists solely smear Zak. 

Again, one of the people speaking out was Zak's longtime partner, who was also frequently used as a shield. And who alleges physical and psychological abuse: 
https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252blog

And then there is also this follow-up accusation:
https://www.facebook.com/VivkaCriesWolf/posts/2478145012257909

So these aren't just accusation. That is evidence. Eye witness testimony and victim statements.
What more do you need? 



John Lynch2 said:


> If they are acting on more than the allegation, and are in fact reacting to known behaviour of Zak S or so strongly suspected behaviour that they feel confident in their current reaction: What the heck was the RPG industry doing up until now? If Zak S is so bad that he should have every mention of him removed from the RPG industry, why didn't they do something before now? I certainly wasn't surprised to see the most recent allegation. So why the heck are they pretending to be surprised? And if they didn't have any suspicions, why are they taking such drastic action against someone without any legal proceedings occurring?



Here's the thing: people aren't surprised. I wasn't. Many others weren't either. It was well known that Zak was a pretty horrible and abusive person. That's why there was a walk-out of the 2014 ENnies. That's why people protested his inclusion in the credits of the PHB. That's why WotC hasn't worked with him since. 

But there was always enough room to deny. For people to tell themselves that he was just being a troll online, but wasn't a bad person. Or that he wasn't really targeting people online, and his victims were just feigning outrage or thin skinned. 
Until, finally, the sexual assault accusations by his girlfriends surfaced. And that was enough to convince *most* people that his online behavior wasn't just as masque. That he wasn't just a troll online. That he was a serial abuser and toxic individual. 



John Lynch2 said:


> If Ed Greenwood or Mike Mearls get similar allegations made against them, will they be treated the same as Zak S? And if not, then why not?



Here's the thing... if people have a horrible reputation for being a despicable toxic individual, then accusations against them have a lot of weight. People are quick to believe the accusations against Zak because he had a terrible reputation online. 
If someone has a reputation for being a kind gentleman and a positive voice and a single person accuses them, then that stands out as uncharacteristic. People might be more willing to listen to the accused and question a denial. 

Mike Mearls has a so-so reputation, so it wouldn't surprise many who want to believe the worst of him. (Especially after his behaviour in the early ZS controversies of 2014.)
Ed Greenwood is a dirty old man, so if it came out he was handsy as well, no one would be surprised. 

But if, say, Jeremy Crawford was accused of assault, people might stop and want to hear his side. There's more room for doubt. As always, some people would believe the worst, and some would give him the benefit of the doubt. But with no evidence, a single accusation would not be enough to tarnish his reputation. Because his reputation is solid. 


But let's play the numbers game.
According to the FBI 2% of sexual assault accusations are false. 
Meanwhile, only 34.8% of rapes are reported. (That would be 2% of that 34.8%). That means 65.2% of rapes are unreported, in large part because women are discouraged from naming names and afraid they will not be believed. 

We, as a society, are apparently okay to let 65.2% of women not even REPORT the fact they were raped, because it _might _damage the reputation of the 2% of men who are falsely accused. We're willing to let tens of thousands of actual rapists go free and be allowed to rape more women just to avoid damaging the ing reputation of a few hundred men.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> I saw a statistic that said that 40% of men would suffer from domestic abuse at some stage in their life and yet if the Police turn up at your place after your partner beats you up it is the man that gets arrested every single time.




Yes. But that is a good example of the adage that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#Criticism


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 20, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Yes. But that is a good example of the adage that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#Criticism




Oh look, Shasarak is back in a thread about the "reputations of men", where all he will do is lie, dodge, evade and eventually block anyone who calls him out for being the troll he is.  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Jester David said:


> But let's play the numbers game.
> According to the FBI 2% of sexual assault accusations are false.
> Meanwhile, only 34.8% of rapes are reported. (That would be 2% of that 34.8%). That means 65.2% of rapes are unreported, in large part because women are discouraged from naming names and afraid they will not be believed.



So how many accusations *do you* think should be aired before they should have their credits removed from all works and their products removed from RPGNow?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Yes. But that is a good example of the adage that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#Criticism




It is so bad that men get prosecuted 96% of the time which means that women escape prosecution 95% of the time.

Which really does explain why [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] does not see anything.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> I'd be concerned if my place of employment fired someone because their girlfriend/boyfriend stood at the corner of a shopping centre and yelled about abuse the person had done to them. I'm not sure what American law or attitude is towards this though. You lot have some very.... "interesting" ideas and laws when it comes to employment and firing people without cause.




It's called "off-duty conduct". 
Depending on local/ state laws, if an employee's behaviour harms the company's reputation or product they can (and absolutely will) fire you. 
That's literally how workplace drug testing works. 

Don't believe me? Try it. Go to the HR department at your work and ask them if you were featured in the local paper for a domestic disturbance where you were reported to be beating your spouse, as if they would continue to employ you? Hypothetically speaking of course. Ask if they'd fire you on the sport, or find some reason to let you go? Suddenly, that extra sick day or those long lunches just mean you're not working out...

And, if you're a freelancer who works-for-hire, then this doubly applies. Because it's not just them firing you, but them choosing _not _to hire you again.

You don't even need to be a wife beater and rapist like Zak to get black listened in the RPG industry. There's a LOT of freelancers out there and not a lot of paying work. Just being rude and unprofessional is enough to cost you work. 
If you're a jerk and have a bad reputation, there's no shortage of other people who are almost as talented but not a jerk.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t thibk there are hard and fast rules for this stuff. Times are changing and people are more connected, so this kind of news spreads farther and wider and much more quickly. Again, this is one of the reasons that this instance seems to have resulted in stronger consequences s for Zak S. Even over the last 5 years, there’s been a significant shift in how these situations are handled.
> 
> And over the last several years there seems to have been a strong push for improvement inside the industry, at concentions and at publishers. Hopefully, that continues.



Are you okay with the industry leader and the biggest online seller of RPG products acting completely inconsistent? Now that they've set the standard on what happens when someone is found by them to be not worthy of inclusion in the professional community, I find it horrifying that they might do so with no consistency and argue through their actions "well we don't believe THOSE victims" or worse "not enough victims have come forward for us to act on someone who has been accused of abuse".

And yet, the idea that one allegation is enough is also quite horrifying. Here we go: I picked two names that I thought were people who had good standing in the RPG industry. Jester David almost came out saying "well it's only a matter of times before THAT person gets accused" against one of those two people. Which shows no-one's safe from being thought the worst of (except apparently Jeremy Crawford? What the heck?)


----------



## Psikosis (Feb 20, 2019)

I have never met anyone involved in this (to my knowledge, you meet a lot of people at cons so anything is possible). I support the survivors. I do and hope they get help if they need it and find a way forward. But that's not the same thing as saying I believe them. I have no idea what did or didn't happen. We, as a community, should extend support to survivors and remember that reasonable folks can disagree about what did or didn't happen. In other words, let's not divide ourselves into believer and doubter tribes.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> So how many accusations *do you* think should be aired before they should have their credits removed from all works and their products removed from RPGNow?



Depends entirely on the severity and nature of the accusation and general standing of the individual in the community. 

The bar is "enough that RPGNow no longer wants to support that person and help them make money". 
Do people feel "icky" supporting that person and no longer want to buy their products? If yes, then pull them.

Really, I think anything that would qualify as a "felony" is probably a good line.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Regarding Bill Webb, I know of two local but well-regarded conventions that have recinded “guest of honor”-type designations from him. And I expect convention organizers will continue to be pressured to be more circumspect about such honors.



So why is his product still available for sale at OneBookshelf? Apparently con organisers believe he's a sexual predator (although I'm curious if they have banned him from their CONS). His apology did seem to contain a certain amount of "I'm not going to dispute those allegations" which isn't quite as close as "I admit they're true" but seemed to be awfully leaning that way.

Either he tried (and failed) to sexually harass someone, or he was falsely accused. Are sexual harassers acceptable in OneBookshelf's eyes? Do they have to escalate to sexual assault before they get removed? Is that okay to the greater community?


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> On the question of "threshold".
> 
> Well, despite my earlier claims, there is actually a pretty simple threshold for businesses.  Is associating my product with you costing me money?  If yes, then, well, I no longer want to associate my product with you.
> 
> So, really, questions about "why didn't they do anything earlier?" basically miss that point.  They didn't do anything earlier because it wasn't hurting business.  Now, it is.  So, now they do something.



Does anyone actually think this gross capatlism is acceptable? We'll defend abusers and work with them so long as we get to earn an extra buck off them? It certainly makes their claims of concern and distancing from Zak S ring hollow if this is truly what motivates them. A shame that such a great game is the hands of such a morally bankrupt organisation. Assuming Hussar is correct.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> And yet, the idea that one allegation is enough is also quite horrifying.



FOUR allegations reported over TWO Facebook posts, with one collaborating and confirming the other, presenting a long-term habitual abuse rather than a single incident.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Does anyone actually think this gross capatlism is acceptable? We'll defend abusers and work with them so long as we get to earn an extra buck off them? It certainly makes their claims of concern and distancing from Zak S ring hollow if this is truly what motivates them. A shame that such a great game is the hands of such a morally bankrupt organisation. Assuming Hussar is correct.




lol, god this thread is so predictable.


----------



## John Lynch2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Jester David said:


> FOUR allegations reported over TWO Facebook posts, with one collaborating and confirming the other, presenting a long-term habitual abuse rather than a single incident.



That's your criteria? Any allegation of abuse/sexual assault must be reported over TWO Facebook posts, with one collaborating and confirming the other, presenting a long-term habitual abuse rather than a single incident?

That seems very oddly specific. Or you're misreading my posts as me trying to defend Zak S. I'll repeat it again in case you missed it: I wasn't surprised by these allegations. I don't see many people claiming they were surprised. Why are these industry leaders pretending they were surprised?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> I saw a statistic that said that 40% of men would suffer from domestic abuse at some stage in their life and yet if the Police turn up at your place after your partner beats you up it is the man that gets arrested every single time.




As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system- albeit briefly- I can attest that “it is the man that gets arrested every single time.” is untrue.  In fact most states have laws that dictate that, in a domestic dispute, responding officers must remove- but not necessarily _arrest[/I— at least one participating party (spouse, significant other, child, parent, roommate, renter, etc.) from the premises.  Who gets removed is situationally dependent, and officers recieve training on how to assess who should go, including asking all involved if they have a safe place to spend the rest of the evening.  They can even ask for someone to voluntarily leave, at which point a volunteer will be granted time and access to the premises to recover some personal effects with police protection. 

If you continue being a hothead and don’t listen to the cops, or worse, resist restraint attempts or take a swing at one, you WILL get arrested.  If the responding officers are aware of a repeated pattern of behavior that results in multiple call-outs to the same address, someone WILL get arrested.

Summing up, 

1) it isn’t always the man who gets hauled off;
2) being removed does not equal arrested, and may even be voluntary;
3) arrests usually only occur if someone wants to press charges or is unresponsive to the lawful orders of the officers._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Does anyone actually think this gross capatlism is acceptable? We'll defend abusers and work with them so long as we get to earn an extra buck off them? It certainly makes their claims of concern and distancing from Zak S ring hollow if this is truly what motivates them. A shame that such a great game is the hands of such a morally bankrupt organisation. Assuming Hussar is correct.



Look no further than professional sports* to see even worse examples.  As I pointed out, there’s been a societal shift away from tolerance in these cases, and the triggers are getting pulled.



* or big entertainment companies.  Or tech firms.  Ahhh...just watch the news of the last couple of years.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> That's your criteria? Any allegation of abuse/sexual assault must be reported over TWO Facebook posts, with one collaborating and confirming the other, presenting a long-term habitual abuse rather than a single incident?



Yup. Pretty much.
Heck, the second Facebook post is pretty much superfluous. You just need one. 
The criteria is:
a) Accusation from a victim
b) History of abuse rather than a one-time incident

What else would I need? 
Written affidavits? Salacious photos? Incriminating video? The battered body of his wife, beaten to death?



John Lynch2 said:


> Or you're misreading my posts as me trying to defend Zak S.



Aren't you?



John Lynch2 said:


> I'll repeat it again in case you missed it: I wasn't surprised by these allegations. I don't see many people claiming they were surprised. Why are these industry leaders pretending they were surprised?



What industry leaders are pretending to be surprised? Or were surprised at all?

There's a few people who believed and defended Zak prior. But that was just against him being an online troll. But even that behavior was enough for WotC to cut ties and not work with him again. 
Being a jerk is enough for people not to want to hire Zak, but not enough to pull his books. 

Him being a rapist however, _*is *_enough to want to stop selling his content and inviting him to conventions.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Why are these industry leaders pretending they were surprised?




Please ask Meryl Streep, the Clintons and everyone else in Hollywood that question...



> A shame that such a great game is the hands of such a morally bankrupt organisation.




You still watched movies right, even while all this was going on in Hollywood, and you can't seriously have been surprised by the allegations?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> It is so bad that men get prosecuted 96% of the time which means that women escape prosecution 95% of the time.
> 
> Which really does explain why [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] does not see anything.




Now you’re making assumptions about me, and that means you’re making an ass of...well, definitely you.

I didn’t want to bring it up, but I have experience with domestic violence outside of the scope of my employment.  Two of my aunts were physically abused by spouses.  One fought back and gave her attacker a nice shiner...and still lost.

I know a Marine whose wife would wait until he was asleep before tying him to the bed and beating him.

I have a cousin who was attacked by an in-laws wife on his front lawn- and contrary to your assertion, he was not arrested.  _She _was removed, but not arrested.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system- albeit briefly- I can attest that “it is the man that gets arrested every single time.” is untrue.  In fact most states have laws that dictate that, in a domestic dispute, responding officers must remove- but not necessarily _arrest[/I— at least one participating party (spouse, significant other, child, parent, roommate, renter, etc.) from the premises.  Who gets removed is situationally dependent, and officers recieve training on how to assess who should go, including asking all involved if they have a safe place to spend the rest of the evening.  They can even ask for someone to voluntarily leave, at which point a volunteer will be granted time and access to the premises to recover some personal effects with police protection.
> 
> If you continue being a hothead and don’t listen to the cops, or worse, resist restraint attempts or take a swing at one, you WILL get arrested.  If the responding officers are aware of a repeated pattern of behavior that results in multiple call-outs to the same address, someone WILL get arrested.
> 
> ...



_

The question is, how is that applied in the field?  I have seen quotes from a Police Officer saying that they will arrest the man without exception even when it is the man who has been wounded._


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now you’re making assumptions about me, and that means you’re making an ass of...well, definitely you.
> 
> I didn’t want to bring it up, but I have experience with domestic violence outside of the scope of my employment.  Two of my aunts were physically abused by spouses.  One fought back and gave her attacker a nice shiner...and still lost.
> 
> ...




I don't mean to be rude, but you know his game right?  Don't play it.  Report him for being the sexist, lying troll he is and move on.  I'd love to, but this forum's _wonderful_ block function means I can't report anyone who blocks me, no matter what else they do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> The question is, how is that applied in the field?  I have seen quotes from a Police Officer saying that they will arrest the man without exception even when it is the man who has been wounded.




That is probably an officer in need of more training.  

There was an incident on a 2018 episode of _Live PD_ in which the man- who has been stabbed (IOW, was the victim)- was about to be hauled off...but a few seconds later, the issue was cleared up with a few more questions.  The correct person was arrested; the victim got a trip to the hospital.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but you know his game right?  Don't play it.  Report him for being the sexist, lying troll he is and move on.  I'd love to, but this forum's _wonderful_ block function means I can't report anyone who blocks me, no matter what else they do.



I don’t ignore anyone.  Sometimes, the ones we most want to ignore are the ones who most need our attention.

I may report him, I might not.  But my answers are less for him and more for those reading.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 20, 2019)

Sometimes, “Don’t feed the trolls” refers to whole threads. Especially when the thread is reigniting a discussion that was already shut down before.  

Concern trolls and MRA talking-point parrots aside, it’s pretty obvious that the current cultural zeitgeist surrounding sexual harassment and sexualized violence is finally hitting the tabletop games industry. That’s great news. It means the industry and community as a whole is finally taking a stand against unacceptable behavior that has run pretty rampant in the past. This allows the community to be safer and as a result more inclusive.

I struggle to find a more reasonable reaction than suspicion to those who see all of this as a negative.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> So why is his product still available for sale at OneBookshelf? Apparently con organisers believe he's a sexual predator (although I'm curious if they have banned him from their CONS). His apology did seem to contain a certain amount of "I'm not going to dispute those allegations" which isn't quite as close as "I admit they're true" but seemed to be awfully leaning that way.
> 
> Either he tried (and failed) to sexually harass someone, or he was falsely accused. Are sexual harassers acceptable in OneBookshelf's eyes? Do they have to escalate to sexual assault before they get removed? Is that okay to the greater community?




Probably, among other things, because they (Paizo, Frog God, and the victim of the harassment) dealt with the situation at the convention and the immediate aftermath and Webb's been on notice about his behavior enough to keep it under control. That's a pretty stark contrast with Zak S already. There's continuing fallout, but as long as Webb manages to keep his nose clean and pressure stays on him to do so, rehabilitation is probably possible without such drastic measures.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Also, FWIW, the _highest_ number I have seen from any hotline, police, or academic source is that 33% of males face domestic abuse in their lifetime.  The last 3 words are key: just like for women, “lifetime” includes victimization as a child.  1 in 5 female and 1 in 7 males who experience rape are first victimized between 11-17.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I struggle to find a more reasonable reaction than suspicion to those who see all of this as a negative.




All of it as a negative? Definitely not - addressing problems is positive. But I can't say I don't see some negative things going on and maybe there's a little too much absolutism. For example, I can understand the GaryCon boycott pressure over naming Bill Webb and Frank Mentzer guests of honor - and both have had the honorific rescinded. But I still don't get why Tim Kask is named in the boycott too.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 20, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Sometimes, “Don’t feed the trolls” refers to whole threads. Especially when the thread is reigniting a discussion that was already shut down before.
> 
> ...(snip)...
> 
> I struggle to find a more reasonable reaction than suspicion to those who see all of this as a negative.




Dialogue is good even if you disagree and no matter the topic of conversation - be it politics, religion or otherwise. People are becoming less tolerant of disagreement which, for me, is a bad thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Dialogue is good even if you disagree and no matter the topic of conversation - be it politics, religion or otherwise. People are becoming less tolerant of disagreement which, for me, is a bad thing.




While I never met the people in question, I am inspired by a rabbi who listened to and talked with his victimizers instead of ignoring them.  Back in the 1990s, he and his family were being harrassed by phone calls from a white supremacist.  Instead of hanging up or yelling or any of theexpected behaviors most of us would understand, he engaged.  Every phone call, he asked why the man was so angry; if there was something he could do to help him.  Usually, he netted more abuse.

And then one day, his abuser actually answered the rabbi’s questions, opening a dialog between them.  Eventually, they met face to face.

Long story short, the white supemacist abandoned his hateful ideology.

Darryl Davis has been doing the same thing for a while, too.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/5448...0-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

I can’t say I’ve ever converted anyone into abandoning hateful ideologies, and I definitely don’t have the inner peacefulness or calm demeanor of those guys I mentioned.  But I can still aspire to their examples.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Does anyone actually think this gross capatlism is acceptable? We'll defend abusers and work with them so long as we get to earn an extra buck off them? It certainly makes their claims of concern and distancing from Zak S ring hollow if this is truly what motivates them. A shame that such a great game is the hands of such a morally bankrupt organisation. Assuming Hussar is correct.




Why do you expect corporations to act in a moral manner in a capitalist system?  

You asked, I answered.  This is true of ALL businesses in a capitalist system.   Capitalism has no morals.  

I mean, good grief, they just signed that guy in the NFL who was on video tape beating a woman to a several million dollar deal.  While we might wag fingers at the industry for being slow, at least they did finally act.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Are we as consumers okay at the professional RPG industry refusing to do business with someone over a mere allegation? Because I can see this quickly leading to some innocent people hurt sooner or later.




Speaking generically (not necessarily wrt. the current case), I am OK as a consumer.

Bad behaviour is one thing, criminal behaviour is another thing. The justice system takes care of criminal behaviours, and people in a community takes care of bad behaviours. I don't like to hear people calling for the justice system to punish someone who hasn't broken the law, but it's not necessary to break to the law to trigger a response from a community. Refusing to do business is an acceptable response even without proven criminal conduct.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> You asked, I answered.  This is true of ALL businesses in a capitalist system.   Capitalism has no morals.



Even Adam Smith understood this, but people generally ignore his writings on morality and ethics, and just focus on _Wealth of Nations_.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Strangely enough comments weren't enabled on the news article over Zak S being removed from the PHB. I'm not sure why



After reading five dozen comments on this one post, you probably know 'why' by now.

Some people have the privilege of not knowing anything at all about abusive relationships. They should consider themselves fortunate and live their lives in humility, because a great number of us know entirely too much about them.

I believe Hannah, Vivka, Mandy, and Jennifer.  I support the decisions of DriveThruRPG, WotC and GenCon.  And that's all I came here to say.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Are we as consumers okay at the professional RPG industry refusing to do business with someone over a mere allegation? Because I can see this quickly leading to some innocent people hurt sooner or later.



The idea that this backlash exists the result of a "mere allegation" downplays the scope and nature of these allegations (plural). In particular, it's that 1) these allegations are about an individual with well-known toxic behavior (and lots of red flags), 2) these allegations came from his ex-wife (among other women) - whom the individual in question used as a puppet account for shielding his own toxic behavior online - and 3) the serious nature of these allegations rooted in sexual assault, rape, and abuse. 

I also think that this immorally misplaces the moral obligation here. This is not about protecting hypothetical innocents that this may hurt, but, rather, about believing the actual victims of abuse who have been hurt by this individual. Worrying about hypothetical innocents of false accusations is attempting to deflect, derail, and damage the allegations made by abuse victims when they do arise through shifting the moral question to protecting a hypothetical class of corner cases. It basically hides the actual abuse committed by abusers behind the shield of hypothetical innocents, who constitute a slim minority of cases. 

The below is a lot to unpack. 


> If they are acting on more than the allegation, and are in fact reacting to known behaviour of Zak S or so strongly suspected behaviour that they feel confident in their current reaction: What the heck was the RPG industry doing up until now? If Zak S is so bad that he should have every mention of him removed from the RPG industry, why didn't they do something before now?



Hence a lot of the current outrage. The tip of the iceberg toxic behaviors were publicly known and reported during the time of the D&D Next playtest and were left to fester in the community until now. (And a big part of the anger and disappointment is not just about Zak S but also on how Mike Mearls enabled and facilitated Zak S's toxic behavior.) This is not just about what Mandy Morbid reported Zak S did, but also about how the Industry turned a blind eye (or actively defended him) to a prominent toxic person who committed harm against the TTRPG community. 

Also a critical difference from the time before these latest allegations is, again, the nature of the allegations, namely rape and sexual assault, as well as the current #MeToo movement, which really only began in the Autumn of 2017. The #MeToo movement has helped bolster and create a platform for victims of abuse in public spaces. 



> I certainly wasn't surprised to see the most recent allegation. So why the heck are they pretending to be surprised? And if they didn't have any suspicions, why are they taking such drastic action against someone without any legal proceedings occurring?



Some people should have known better, and there is no excuse for their surprise. For some people though it was a surprise, and they may have had their legitimate reasons for being surprised. Ignorance is bliss for some. Some people are not plugged into the social scene behind the publishing or the person's community engagement. If you only bought one of his books at a game shop because the staff or friend recommended it, you would likely not be aware of the author's full reputation. They either do not even know who Zak S is or his reputation in the community. Some people likely had suspicions but overlooked them because they believe the best in people (particularly those who may have regarded him as a friend), or they never personally experienced the problems themselves, or they were fooled by Zak S. A blog post by Mandy Morbid had provided Zak S with his most commonly cited shield against criticism. Even Mearls pointed to this blog post when he gaslighted (and dead names) victims of Zak's abuse and harassment. But we only fairly recently had it confirmed from Mandy Morbid that it was not her who wrote it. That revelation left a LOT of his defenders and apologists with egg on their face.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 20, 2019)

I tried to reply in a way why I think, that waiting to take possible actions against a probable abuser is sensible bit that would sound like defending...
so just a reminder: you need to be sure enough to take actions because as you see, the consequences are dramatic. As a company you need to be even more sure because otherwise legal actions can be taken against you.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 20, 2019)

I have generally avoided this topic and have read almost none of the comments. But...

"Does anyone actually think this gross capatlism is acceptable? We'll defend abusers..."

Its has always tended to be the case that public scandals of a certain level get you a new title at your job - " former". This is especially true when it hits public with a flurry from multiple sources and wide spread coverage. 

Often, this does not wait for the full due process. Sometimes it has to go thru a process - suspension, internal investigation etc but for whether or not you hire contract work, include product, etc often not. You can usually stop working with someone at any time.

What varies from time to time and place to place is what type of scandal it is that gets more immediate response, which get slow and quiet response, which get quietly swept under the rug, etc.

So, this has been the way of things likely since the invention of scandal. But the flavors of the scandals that fit into the various  "how do we respond" buckets has changed over time. 

If your scandal will hurt the company, expect to be "former" or "future endeavored" or some other degree of cut off fast.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2019)

To me it seems fairly straightforward.

When the 5e D&D PHB was published, WotC (the company), presumably relying in part on the judgement of Mearls and colleagues in the D&D team, formed the view that it was a market advantage to be assocated with certain known advocates of particular "old school" or at least anti-"new school" styles of D&D (ie RPG Pundit and Zak S).

Whereas they have now formed the view that such association would constitute a market detriment. The reasons why they would think so, and why they are probably right to think so, are pretty obvious.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2019)

I think it may be that they just don't want the (possible??) headache of having D&D associated in general with any of the consultants anymore, probably with the Zak S. stuff being a catalyst for the move. (Honestly... is it a common practice for consultants to receive credit in a book??).  

Anyway they didn't just remove Zak S. and RPG Pundit... they removed all of the consultants including Kenneth Hite, Kevin Kulp, Vincent Venturella & Robin Laws...none of whom I would classify as old school or anti-new school.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 20, 2019)

Imaro said:


> I think it may be that they just don't want the (possible??) headache of having D&D associated in general with any of the consultants anymore, probably with the Zak S. stuff being a catalyst for the move. (Honestly... is it a common practice for consultants to receive credit in a book??).
> 
> Anyway they didn't just remove Zak S. and RPG Pundit... they removed all of the consultants including Kenneth Hite, Kevin Kulp, Vincent Venturella & Robin Laws...none of whom I would classify as old school or anti-new school.




This is where I think WotC's response may be a bit on the excessive side. I have grave misgivings about a corporation erasing someone's credit - whether that person is a toad or not  - without also removing the impact they've had on the product. But removing all of the consultants? If I had been involved at that level and had a credit removed, I'd be kind of pissed off.


----------



## D351 (Feb 20, 2019)

IMO, (and I did not read the seven pages of replies this post has already received) an abuser's reputation isn't enough to effect business relationships until someone makes that reputation into news. The latest allegations made it news. You don't lose business connections for being a bad person; you lose them for being outed as a bad person to the right people or enough people. It's not a perfect system, but it seems to have worked in this case (if not a bit late). There are certainly enough allegations and enough corroborating witnesses to presume that they are not simply made up. And no business, especially in an industry that is currently working hard against its own reputation of failing at inclusivity, wants to be attached to a reputation like ZS's.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2019)

billd91 said:


> This is where I think WotC's response may be a bit on the excessive side. I have grave misgivings about a corporation erasing someone's credit - whether that person is a toad or not  - without also removing the impact they've had on the product. But removing all of the consultants? If I had been involved at that level and had a credit removed, I'd be kind of pissed off.




Eh, I think it may be a way to avoid any legal entanglements... this way they can just claim they are no longer giving consultant credits in their book moving forward as opposed to specific reasons for specific consultants being removed... which could get messy.  I don't think it's a big deal either way they weren't developers or designers and I'm not sure listing consultants in a book is a common practice.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Does anyone actually think this gross capatlism is acceptable?




erm...have you heard of the United States? We have companies here that you can literally prove caused cancer and deaths in little children to save a few bucks, but because it couldn't be proved _which_ children got cancer from the company's actions and which ones would have gotten cancer anyway they're off the hook.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 20, 2019)

The Sugar Lobby and World Health Organisation say hello


----------



## dco (Feb 20, 2019)

If you want to know if he is considered a rapist legally you have to wait until he is judged.
The roleplaying industry? Marketing and hipocrisy, they want to sell books, that's all.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 20, 2019)

I said my part on the matter on the last thread. I'm just going to add this here:

The DMs Guild currently has a series of PDF Bundles on sale in support of RAINN (you can also just make a donation as well):

https://www.dmsguild.com/featured.php?promotion_id=RAINN-02-19

I


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

billd91 said:


> But removing all of the consultants? If I had been involved at that level and had a credit removed, I'd be kind of pissed off.




We don't know what his feedback was, or what of his even got used, so I don't know if his "level" of involvement is something we can speak to.

But, ultimately, consultants are not authors.  In most industries, anyone called a "consultant" is a person who is hired on temporarily to lend a hand with something.  They don't typically get insurance benefits or vacation days, much less get public credit outside the company for successes.  If you were to get "pissed" about that, don't hire on as a consultant, as your expectations of what that means are a bit high.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 20, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Dialogue is good even if you disagree and no matter the topic of conversation - be it politics, religion or otherwise. People are becoming less tolerant of disagreement which, for me, is a bad thing.




I don't disagree in the slightest. I should have been a bit more clear; I was referring more to the concern trolling a la "will no one think of the poor harassers!" Obviously a legitimate dialogue about the reach and impact of any industry or community reaction to sexual harassment is a good thing. But when the folks pop out of the woodwork, as they inevitably do, to shout "well we can't ever prove it in a court of law so I guess we just have to keep letting sexualized violence get a pass, THAT'S THE PRICE WE PAY FOR FREEDOM" I can't help but feel a bit leery of them. Understandably so, I'd hope.

That said, and all due respect to the Darryl Davis's of the world, and the amazing work that they're doing, but nobody should be questioned for refusing to tolerate intolerance, Popper's Paradox and all that. That kind of work has a tremendous cost, and it's not one everybody has the ability to bear (nor should anybody be expected to bear it).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

Put differently: while we can’t all be saints, we can aspire to sainthood.  But those who can’t achieve such a lofty goal shouldn’t be disparaged for falling short.


----------



## D351 (Feb 20, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> After reading five dozen comments on this one post, you probably know 'why' by now.
> 
> Some people have the privilege of not knowing anything at all about abusive relationships. They should consider themselves fortunate and live their lives in humility, because a great number of us know entirely too much about them.
> 
> I believe Hannah, Vivka, Mandy, and Jennifer.  I support the decisions of DriveThruRPG, WotC and GenCon.  And that's all I came here to say.




What decision did Gen Con make? I haven't been able to find any response from them other than a non-committal tweet.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> Are you okay with the industry leader and the biggest online seller of RPG products acting completely inconsistent? Now that they've set the standard on what happens when someone is found by them to be not worthy of inclusion in the professional community, I find it horrifying that they might do so with no consistency and argue through their actions "well we don't believe THOSE victims" or worse "not enough victims have come forward for us to act on someone who has been accused of abuse".
> 
> And yet, the idea that one allegation is enough is also quite horrifying. Here we go: I picked two names that I thought were people who had good standing in the RPG industry. Jester David almost came out saying "well it's only a matter of times before THAT person gets accused" against one of those two people. Which shows no-one's safe from being thought the worst of (except apparently Jeremy Crawford? What the heck?)




Acting inconsistent in what way? Changing their stance over time? I don't know if I'd consider that a reasonable metric for inconsistent behavior. Or do you mean why are they acting about Zak, but not about other possible abusers within the industry? 

I think your take that everyone knows everything about Zak, and any theoretical abuser, is overstated. For example, I didn't know much about him. I was familiar with some of his work, and I quite liked it. I knew he had a blog, and I had read a couple of posts. But....I'm not on twitter or facebook or most other forms of social media....so my knowledge of Zak was pretty limited. I only learned about his online behavior and all the accusations and the feuds with other industry folks fairly recently. 

I would say that this is more likely the default stance of most RPG players. None of the players in my group have any idea who he is, other than that they may know he wrote Vornheim. 

For industry folks, plenty of people had issues with Zak. However, mostly it seemed like online arguments and so on. I remember finding out about some of this stuff, and reading forum posts and tweets and so on of people accusing Zak of certain behaviors, and of him accusing others, and everyone defending themselves with "evidence".....and I found it all rather nonsensical. I attributed it to the generally toxic way that people behave online, especially in matters of opinion about topics they are passionate about. I pretty much looked at it as a bunch of people yelling at each other online, and dismissed it all. 

I would say that is part of the problem. Veracity of claims can easily be lost in online interactions, especially given the hyperbolic and exaggerated way we tend to deal with each other online. It becomes a signal lost in the noise kind of situation. 

So for anyone in the industry who was not aware of what Zak had been accused of, or who was willing to grant him benefit of the doubt, I can kind of understand that. Up to a point. I think the new allegations, combined with everything from the past, should make it very difficult for anyone to side with Zak. 

Ultimately, people can and should shift their views as more information is made available to them. If there's someone I work with, who I know well enough to consider them a good person, an accusation of wrongdoing is going to be something I would initially resist. I just think that's human nature. We're going to side with people we know over people we don't, generally speaking. But if more accusations come up, and more evidence of questionable behavior....I have to reevaluate my view. 

I feel like you want everyone to have committed to a specific stance on day one, and then never alter that stance, which seems unrealistic and unnecessary. Could WotC have acted quicker? Sure. But I also know that a corporate response takes more time to craft than a tweet from a blogger. It's simply the reality of the situation. 

So given the choice of crediting them with responding or blaming them for not responding quicker, I think the former is the more sensible option.


----------



## Vexorg (Feb 20, 2019)

This is what George Orwell called becoming an "unperson". It's not enough for WotC to cut ties with him going forward. They have to go back in time and erase all record of his involvement, so they get to pretend he was never a part of their playtest team.

Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on." Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2019)

Vexorg said:


> This is what George Orwell called becoming an "unperson". It's not enough for WotC to cut ties with him going forward. They have to go back in time and erase all record of his involvement, so they get to pretend he was never a part of their playtest team.
> 
> Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on." Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?




Because associating with him could cost them money and honestly his name being on it probably doesn't bring in enough extra money to offset that risk.  He performed a job, got paid for it and unless it was stipulated in his contract that he be listed in the book... what would be the advantage for WotC in keeping his name on it?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

Vexorg said:


> They have to go back in time and erase all record of his involvement, so they get to pretend he was never a part of their playtest team.




That's one interpretation.  Another is that we should not do honor to those who are not good people.  



> Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on."




Because the credits page of a book is not the place for that kind of notification.  



> Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?




Because social punishment is *supposed* to hit him in the pride.  It is supposed to make others look at their own behavior, and consider what they value, and how they want to be remembered, and behave accordingly.  The simple message here: if you want to be remembered for your work, don't be a class-A jerk.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 20, 2019)

Vexorg said:


> This is what George Orwell called becoming an "unperson".



They’re having him secretly murdered??



Vexorg said:


> It's not enough for WotC to cut ties with him going forward. They have to go back in time and erase all record of his involvement, so they get to pretend he was never a part of their playtest team.
> 
> Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on." Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?



It’s a symbol that WotC doesn’t want to support or advertise such a person. It doesn’t change anything but is a gesture of support for the victims and an acknowledgement of their mistakes.

He’s been cast out of the gaming community. He is being shown the door and told he is no longer welcome. He is uninvited to the party. 
Stripping him of a prime accolade (a credit in the Core Rulebook of the predominant game in the market) is important.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> If they are acting on more than the allegation, and are in fact reacting to known behaviour of Zak S or so strongly suspected behaviour that they feel confident in their current reaction: What the heck was the RPG industry doing up until now? If Zak S is so bad that he should have every mention of him removed from the RPG industry, why didn't they do something before now? I certainly wasn't surprised to see the most recent allegation. So why the heck are they pretending to be surprised? And if they didn't have any suspicions, why are they taking such drastic action against someone without any legal proceedings occurring?




There's a phrase you probably want to know: *missing stair* - "a person within a social group who many people know is untrustworthy or otherwise has to be "managed", but who they work around by trying to quietly warn others rather than deal with openly. The analogy is to a dangerous structural fault such as a missing stair in a home, which residents have become used to and accepting of, and which is not fixed or signposted, but which (some or most) newcomers are warned about. "

It takes significant work and pain to really deal with individuals who are problems, but have come to hold sway and influence.  A great many people prefer to avoid or "manage" such problems, rather than confront them, and that means our communities have inertia.  Frequently, change does not happen until events unfold that overcome that inertia, and then the ball rolls with dramatic speed.

So, in this case - Apparently many people inside the gaming community were aware of issues surrounding him.  Some folks covered for him, or dismissed complaints or defended him because they thought Zak S. was too valuable to lose, or the effort of trying to confront the issue would have blowback, because his work and his public persona were popular.  He used his own popularity and abrasive style as a weapon to keep things quiet.  This kind of arrangement can last a long time, until someone gets fed up and is loud and persuasive enough for larger numbers to become aware and take notice and look sternly at the community leaders and ask, "What in blue blazes have you been doing about this person?!?"  That moment has come for Zak S.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 20, 2019)

D351 said:


> What decision did Gen Con make? I haven't been able to find any response from them other than a non-committal tweet.



And that's all we will find, until they decide to tell us more.  (I wouldn't hold my breath, though.  They just said their Policy Team decisions are private.)  GenCon is a different type of entity than, say, WotC or DriveThruRPG.

When I said that I support GenCon's decision, I meant it broadly:  not because I know what their decision is, but because it is their decision to make, and I support _them_.  I'm satisfied knowing they aren't ignoring this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2019)

“Missing stair”?  _That_ is a useful analogy- thanks for teaching me something today!


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now you’re making assumptions about me, and that means you’re making an ass of...well, definitely you.




Hmm, at least that answers that question.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Yup. Pretty much.
> Heck, the second Facebook post is pretty much superfluous. You just need one.
> The criteria is:
> a) Accusation from a victim
> ...




There was a period of time where you only needed one accusation to get a Mob riled up enough to go out and Lynch some poor fool.  Maybe they did not even bother to wear their hoods.

It is really interesting to see someone look back on those times as the good old days.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 20, 2019)

Edit: This post was inappropriate, so I have deleted it.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 20, 2019)

Vexorg said:


> Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, *why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on."* Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?



Because then they would be lying. Wizards may not have known about the rape, sexual assault, or "in meat life" abuse, but they knew about a good chunk of the rest (up to 2014). Again, this is part of why people are still upset with Round 2 of tepid responses from Wizards of the Coast. During the development of D&D Next, Mike Mearls knew people found his inclusion upsetting. Victims voiced their concerns, stories, and problems with Zak S. Mike Mearls then gave Zak S a list of his accusers, which he used as a blacklist for future harassment campaigns. Mike Mearls defended him. Mike Mearls dismissed the victims of his harassment. Mike Mearls gaslighted these victims. And nowhere in Wizards of the Coast's statements do they actually acknowledge or apologize for this level of active involvement in facilitating and enabling that harassment. 

As to why his credit is being stripped, a big part of that has to do with being able to bank on your place in the credits to bolster your position in a community, writing, or making money. RPG Pundit, for example, does point to his credits in the PHB to bolster his brand.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

Sadras said:


> People are becoming less tolerant of disagreement which, for me, is a bad thing.




I'd like to respond to this a bit:  There is tolerance of disagreement, and then there's tolerance of bad behavior.  These are not the same.

If you are a troll, or otherwise not in the dialogue in good faith, we don't need to tolerate your position.  If you are in denial of facts for your own benefit, we don't need to tolerate your disagreement.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> As to why his credit is being stripped, a big part of that has to do with being able to bank on your place in the credits to bolster your position in a community, writing, or making money. RPG Pundit, for example, does point to his credits in the PHB to bolster his brand.



And, for better or worse, still can if they want to.  All they need is a photo of the credits page from one of the many 5e books already out there with his name in it.

Removing those credits won't have much if any impact right now other than symbolic.  Even the unsold books on the shelf or in the distribution pipeline still have those names in - unless WotC decides to recall and destroy them all; *that* would be an action that would make a statement.  

I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> There was a period of time where you only needed one accusation to get a Mob riled up enough to go out and Lynch some poor fool.





*Shasarak will no longer be a part of this conversation, or any other on EN World.  Ever.

Please consider this as you post.  As has already been noted - bad behavior does not have to be tolerated*.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I really... _really_ try not to block people, but sometimes people go so far beyond the pale to prove they're not worth the time of day. I think comparing women disclosing the years of abuse and suffering they've been put through to the ing _KKK_ certainly qualifies.
> 
> Reported. Blocked.




I've largely just let this thread run it's own course without comment, but since you're making a big show of how you are reporting and blocking people...  

I don't think that comparison was remotely fair.  While his comparison may have been an exaggeration, it certainly wasn't comparing those two things you've claimed at all.   He wasn't comparing the actions of women reporting accusations, but the actions of the mob responding to them and I think the justifications provided for calling upon mob action.  I'm not a big fan of analogies, because I find that they obfuscate the truth rather than disclose it, but his point - however tastelessly made - is not one whose merit is automatically dismissible.  Heck, it's not even one that is automatically dismissible as a matter of social justice, as the number of court cases in recent years by black males who've one law suits against colleges because colleges were willing to "believe all women" and #metoo as long as the alleged perp was a black male provides an example for.  

Anyway, as for the thread itself, it's the usual.  I happen to believe the accusation, but I don't think believing the accusation makes me virtuous or is in any fashion helpful or a better person.  I don't actually know these people, despite occasional interaction with Zak (some positive, some negative).  Their private lives grieve me, and the pain that these women have suffered pains me (which it did when I only knew they were porn stars, but the more so as the veil of fantasy is torn off the concept and the persona of Zak or the falsehood of Zak+Mandy in particular), but I don't expect that my pity or my compassion - much less my outrage - does anyone any good.  I don't plan to buy anything from Zak S, but then I never planned to do so anyway, so this is no threat.  To say that I wasn't his target audience in the first place is an understatement.   I didn't approve of the life of a male porn star even before I knew that his abuse and denigration of women went beyond the normal stereotype for that profession.  I didn't approve of how his morality colored the products and art he produced.  I don't disapprove of a decision to not patronize his works because you don't want to financially support someone whose behavior is like Zak S, but I also am very uncomfortable with the idea of 'social punishment' and collective action against persons that fall outside the criminal justice system.  That is a slippery slope I don't want to go down, and I'm old enough to remember when the left spoke glowingly of artistic works that discussed the risks of black lists, shunning, and collective social punishment and demonized those that engaged in that behavior.  Not surprisingly, it appears that the objection was only being targeted by the majority opinion, and that now that the left has power it's feeling like those things it formerly despised seem like reasonable tools of social control all of the sudden.   I can very much understand not wanting to bestow honors on Zak now that his character is publically disclosed, but I never bestowed honors on him in the first place so its not my problem.  Now that those honors are bestowed, since they weren't bestowed with any obvious comment on his personal character, but only on the perceived artistic merit of his works, I'm uncomfortable with acts of publically rescinding those honors, because I don't think you can unwrite history (or the economic benefit and social standing he's hitherto received from the honors), but even more so because my suspicion is that people rescind honors more for their own sake than out of any real desire for things to be better.   I don't think anyone would ever mistake winning an Ennie for a humanitarian award.  I don't see how it actually heals anything to take them away but maybe your own self-respect.  (If your self-respect worries you, consider you will never ever have done anything as embarrassing as a standing ovation for Roman Polanski at the Oscars after his history as a child rapist was known, and during which the audience was congratulating itself on its courage for standing up on his behalf.)  I don't know either his victims or Zak well enough to actually help or heal in this situation.  I am actually a small person, not important to this affair at all.  There is absolutely nothing I can do to applaud myself for even if I wanted to.

In short, I don't agree with any of you and I find pretty much all this talk from just about everyone embarrassing, dangerous, and decidedly anti-social.  If this conversation was occurring in a physical space, I wouldn't want to be in the room with you.   I don't agree.  I don't 'believe all women' because I don't consider women more a collective than individuals.  I believe these women.  I don't think we are actually turning some social corner.  I think mostly #metoo is advanced for self-centered reasons and I see no sign things are going to get better.  I don't think taking a stand is going to make abusers less likely to be abusive.  I think real progress and change is made one person at a time, through personal and meaningful relationships.  

I am scared, deeply and actually scared, by how much we seem to be trying to reinvent the struggle session and a bunch of other ugly things.  I am deeply disturbed by the complete collapse of morality I see in all corners.  I don't see white hats and black hats.  I see two groups with the same morality and the same convictions, fighting only that their tribe has the power to put the boot on the other one.  I am not scared for myself.  I am scared for the world my children will inherit.  

Could we please just go back to talking about game mechanics and the art and science of RPGs?  Because none of these political threads as it applies to RPGs is nearly as becoming or important as it's lately been considered to be.   People just work themselves up into a tower of rage.

I'm still sad.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Reported. Blocked.





In the future, if you are going to use the ignore list, please don't announce it in public.  It is there to help you enforce self-discipline in avoiding posters who rub you the wrong way, not for inclusion in public dramas.


----------



## ParanoydStyle (Feb 20, 2019)

okay really don't want to get into this miserable quagmire of a topic (not in the sense of "forum topic", in the sense of "topic of discussion") but here goes:

* Zak S was a hero of mine. Now I'd be pleased if he accidentally tripped and fell into an industrial blender. I was one of Zak's fans. He hated the same people I hated. That was hugely important to me from 2014-2016. But I believe Mandy and the others. And I think that the idea that they, for any reason, made up their allegations is ludicrous as well as offensive.

* It is *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG* for WotC to remove Zak's credits from the products he consulted on, and I've told them so directly, not that they listen to a nobody like me. No matter how repugnant a person is or how badly you want to distance yourself from them for PR reasons, retroactively un-crediting a contributor is the same thing as stealing their work and claiming it for your own. It is NOT OKAY and as a professional maker-upper-of-stuff I strongly feel Wizards should NOT do it. Also and I hope by typing this sentence I won't be torpedoing my chance for working for WotC in the future, but I really don't see how removing Zak's name from the products he worked on helps the victims in any way, while it's very clear how it helps WotC, by disassociating themselves from a sexual predator and revising history to pretend they never hired him.

* 







> If Ed Greenwood or Mike Mearls get similar allegations made against them, will they be treated the same as Zak S? And if not, then why not?




Clearly the answer is YES. Have you been following the tragic flaming end of D&D legend Frank Mentzer's career? He was also a rapey  and is paying the price.

* Finally, remember that mention I made about Zak of Zak hating the same people that I did from '14-'16? Well it turns out, those people are also harboring ing child rapists, and the story is getting completely lost in the face of Sabbathgate and Mentzergate. Insufferable jerkass Matt McFarland (formerly BlackHat_Matt on RPG.net) is also literally a CHILD RAPIST, and the list of allegations against him is still growing but is already a disgusting litany of creepery. His wife, Michelle Lyons-McFarland, received reports of her husband's inappropriate behavior in her official capacity and proceeded to cover for him. Matt has not denied the allegations, has made a public statement effectively admitting them, and has stepped down from RPG.net, the IGDN, and closed his company, all things you don't do if you're not very, very, (probably) guilty. I've been talking to people on Twitter who have witnessed this kind of predatory behavior from Matt since 2003!! What's particularly galling is that Matt McFarland has been one of those shrieking SJW male feminist allies, smugly holier than thou about how progressive he is and how much he wants to help marginalized groups. All while he has been getting away with nearly two decades of predating upon underaged or very young girls. Sickening. 

At the time this broke, Matt McFarland (who has, with some truly sickening irony, written for "The Good Men Project") was the IGDN's CONVENTION COORDINATOR (his duties included making sure conventions were safe spaces for people) and Michelle was the organization's PRESIDENT. With sexual predators holding such crucial positions in the IGDN, I strongly suspect that the other management were also complicit, enablers, or at the least turning a blind eye, including long time close friend of Matt and Michelle, Mark Diaz Truman of Magpie Games, who held the position of President before Michelle. The IGDN as an organization should be dissolved outright. Considering that the IGDN leadership and the RPG.net moderation team are about 70% the same people, I am very suspicious that higher-ups at the Big Purple might have covered for Matt as well.

tl;dr  Zak S he's a monster, it's still wrong for WotC to remove his credits, Frank Mentzer is also in a lot of trouble for bad behavior, against women at Paizo and in general, and appears to be going out in flames, and in the midst of this, please don't forget that Matt McFarland and Michelle Lyons-McFarland of Growling Door games are alleged by at least half a dozen victims, maybe more, to be a serial child rapist and an enabler of serial child abuse respectively. They will never be as important or as famous as Frank Mentzer or even Zak Sabbath, but they are the kind of rats I can see trying to just hide until this #MeToo moment in the industry passes, hoping that everyone will forget that they were perhaps the worst offenders.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 20, 2019)

Frank Mentzer raped someone?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> Clearly the answer is YES. Have you been following the tragic flaming end of D&D legend Frank Mentzer's career? He was also a rapey  and is paying the price.





I understand the emotional content here, but I am forced to ask you to please watch your language.  I know that may seem silly, in this context, but those are the rules we ask everyone to work with.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2019)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Frank Mentzer raped someone?




He has been accused of harassment, to the point where Luke Gygax took him off the Guest of Honor list for GaryCon 2019.

https://garycon.com/blog/2019/02/18/harbinger-unheeded/


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 20, 2019)

Umbran said:


> He has been accused of harassment, to the point where Luke Gygax took him off the Guest of Honor list for GaryCon 2019.
> 
> https://garycon.com/blog/2019/02/18/harbinger-unheeded/




I know, I was in Frank's game that got cancelled and was planning on going to his Frankenparty.  But calling someone rapey is way beyond lecherous or even harrassing behavior. 

Note: I don't know Frank personally, but throwing rape around casually is a bit much.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

The level of hyperbole does not help the conversation:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I am scared, deeply and actually scared, by how much we seem to be trying to reinvent *the struggle session* and a bunch of other ugly things.




I actually had to google that term.  Hadn't run across that one.

But, comparing government controlled public torture for the purpose of removing political enemies  to something like the #MeToo movement is so unbelievably blind it's bordering on deliberate.

Good grief, the Chinese #MeToo movement just changed the Chinese laws THIS YEAR to include a legal definition of sexual harassment.  China will have it's FIRST civil sexual harassment case in history, THIS YEAR.  

And, while I realize that EN World is supposed to be apolitical, these are important issues.  And, it's helpful, I believe, to spread the word among the hobby.  Particularly considering the history of our hobby as a primarily male dominated one whose demographics are changing pretty rapidly.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2019)

I'm all for a safe and inclusive hobby.  Everybody should feel comfortable going to a convention or a game store free from any concern that they might be harassed.  We're all there to have fun, right?  It's unfortunate that people were more tolerate of terrible behavior in previous years but we can be thankful that attitude is changing.  Including Zak S. in the credits sends a clear message:  We endorse his behavior and we're proud to stand by him.  That is not a message anyone should want to communicate to others.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I'm all for a safe and inclusive hobby.  Everybody should feel comfortable going to a convention or a game store free from any concern that they might be harassed.  We're all there to have fun, right?  It's unfortunate that people were more tolerate of terrible behavior in previous years but we can be thankful that attitude is changing.  Including Zak S. in the credits sends a clear message:  We endorse his behavior and we're proud to stand by him.  That is not a message anyone should want to communicate to others.




I'm not sure I'd go that far as to say we endorse his behavior.

But, removing the credits does say that we don't.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 20, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> In short, I don't agree with any of you and I find pretty much all this talk from just about everyone embarrassing, dangerous, and decidedly anti-social.




Seriously? I'm supposed to be, what, embarrassed? Are you upset that our conversation about how to handle this very real and serious issue within our hobby of sheltering and supporting serial abusers, harassers, assaulters (oh I'm sorry, I meant "politics") is getting in the way of your conversations  about very important, very serious "game mechanics and the art and science of RPGs?" 

Frankly, your holier-than-thou attitude and condescension is completely at odds with not only your constant unwillingness to confront social, community problems as an actual community, but your active antipathy towards such actions. You, as always, live your life like we're in some sort of fantasy world, where bad actors act in a complete vacuum because of their singular personal demons and not because of any broader cultural factors, such as, oh I don't know, the encouragement that comes from a complete and utter lack of societal pressure to change their violent behaviors. 

Look, no problem has never, ever, been solved by everyone sort of coughing and shuffling their feet and saying "well that isn't _my_ problem." You say "I think real progress and change is made one person at a time, through personal and meaningful relationships." which is a beautiful statement and _is_ possible, but it's a follow up to "I don't think taking a stand is going to make abusers less likely to be abusive" which is not only false but insidious and dangerous. You not only actively take the stance _against_ addressing communal problems communally, you're now attempting to shame and belittle those who try to find solutions. Never mind that you disagree with the solutions being proposed; I can get that. But you're saying here that it's wrong to even try. I hesitate to use the phrase, because its origins have implications that are quite a bit more far-reaching than even the indisputably vile acts of violence we're talking about in this thread, but this is the banality of evil. "Nothing to see here. Nothing we can do. Just keep your heads down. Talk about the weather." And even beyond that, you actively interject to try to shame others. You can't just sit on the sidelines; you have to actively become a part of the problem. _This_ is "embarrassing, dangerous, and decidedly anti-social."

I mean, it's _literally_ anti-social; in that it's actively arguing against social action.

We all get that you have a pathological aversion to "virtue signalling", as if it weren't possible for someone to have sincerely held beliefs _and_ argue passionately for them... but... it _is_ actually okay to have sincerely held beliefs and argue passionately for them. There doesn't have to be some ulterior, selfish motive behind it (maybe I should rethink my stance about your perfect fantasy world; it's certainly filled with a lot of insincere hypocrites now that I think about it). But I'm serious. You can't wade into a tense and emotional argument assuming that everyone (or even most people) that disagrees with you aren't being serious, but are instead just trying to earn internet brownie points. That's intellectual dishonesty, and it doesn't become you.

Look, if you don't like the solutions to the problem that we're posing, pose better ones (other than, you know, continuing to turn a blind eye and let all of this awful behavior resolve itself privately, because that's worked _so well_ in the past). And if you don't believe there's a problem, well, maybe I'll need to revisit that "fantasy world" theory one more time. But fine, we can argue that and demonstrate and depth and scope of the problem if need be.

But don't come in here on your high horse and pooh-pooh people for recognizing the problem and trying to do something about it. Yes, it the immediate aftermath of these things there's often a lot more anger and hurt than palpable solutions, I feel that. I also think it's a necessary step. These threads just never seem to get _past_ that step before getting de-railed by concern trolls and anti-feminist ideologues and getting shut down as a result. I recognize the role I have often played in that, and recognize that I could be doing better.  If I am embarrassed about anything, it is that.

You are demonstrably wrong about basically everything here. Social pressure leads to social change, and a place where harassers and abusers are more afraid to harass and abuse is a good thing. If you disagree with that, you are wrong. I'm sorry, but you just are. Now, you can either help us and be part of building a better solution to this (one that might even be much more palatable to your own sensibilities, even!) or you can stop... whatever this is supposed to be. What do the kids call it... poop-posting? No, that doesn't sound right. Well, whatever it's called, stop it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2019)

Imaro said:


> is it a common practice for consultants to receive credit in a book??



The PHB is not a scholarly work governed by standards of academic ethics; and I very much doubt that the sort of work the "consultants" did on the PHB generates entitlements to be acknowledged under "moral rights" law. (I'm not even sure if the US _has_ moral rights laws.)

But it is common for companies to try and promote their products. And in the case of a personality-driven consumer market like RPGing, naming prominent personalities as "consultants" is a marketing technique.



Imaro said:


> I think it may be that they just don't want the (possible??) headache of having D&D associated in general with any of the consultants anymore, probably with the Zak S. stuff being a catalyst for the move.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> they didn't just remove Zak S. and RPG Pundit... they removed all of the consultants including Kenneth Hite, Kevin Kulp, Vincent Venturella & Robin Laws...none of whom I would classify as old school or anti-new school.



I think it's fairly obvious both why the consultants paragraph has come out - and that's clearly not related to Kenneth Hite, Robin Laws et al - and I also think it's fairly obvious why they're doing it simply by deleting the paragraph in question.



Imaro said:


> I think it may be a way to avoid any legal entanglements... this way they can just claim they are no longer giving consultant credits in their book moving forward as opposed to specific reasons for specific consultants being removed... which could get messy.



I don't think it's to avoid any legal entanglements. I very much doubt that there are any legal entanglements that relate to that paragraph. They could remove one name or all and would not have to provide "specific reasons" except in the context of litigation.

I think they're doing it because that's an easy way to do it and doesn't leave any lingering lightning rods for the Zak S "controversy".



Vexorg said:


> This is what George Orwell called becoming an "unperson". It's not enough for WotC to cut ties with him going forward. They have to go back in time and erase all record of his involvement, so they get to pretend he was never a part of their playtest team.
> 
> Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on." Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?



These questions answer themselves, don't they? You don't market your products by associating them with unpopular people. Zak S's level of popularity has suddenly and pretty dramatically changed, and so WotC is changing the marketing material in the PHB.



billd91 said:


> This is where I think WotC's response may be a bit on the excessive side. I have grave misgivings about a corporation erasing someone's credit - whether that person is a toad or not  - without also removing the impact they've had on the product.



This is where I go back go back to the point that it's marketing.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 20, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> * It is *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG* for WotC to remove Zak's credits from the products he consulted on, and I've told them so directly, not that they listen to a nobody like me. No matter how repugnant a person is or how badly you want to distance yourself from them for PR reasons, retroactively un-crediting a contributor is the same thing as stealing their work and claiming it for your own. It is NOT OKAY and as a professional maker-upper-of-stuff I strongly feel Wizards should NOT do it.




Your opinion. There are legions of us who feel is it more than appropriate and are waiting to see if EN World takes the next step to strip him of his Ennies. Why should someone who is a serial abuser and rapist like Zak be allowed to capitalize on using his awards as a means of getting employment in the future? The answer: He shouldn't ever again.



> * Finally, remember that mention I made about Zak of Zak hating the same people that I did from '14-'16? Well it turns out, those people are also harboring ing child rapists, and the story is getting completely lost in the face of Sabbathgate and Mentzergate. Insufferable jerkass Matt McFarland (formerly BlackHat_Matt on RPG.net) is also literally a CHILD RAPIST, and the list of allegations against him is still growing but is already a disgusting litany of creepery. His wife, Michelle Lyons-McFarland, received reports of her husband's inappropriate behavior in her official capacity and proceeded to cover for him.




I know Michelle. Have known her for a very long time before she even met Matt. Her first first husband was a piece of work and gaslighted her. Something to keep in mind when you are quick to condemn her. Matt may very well be abusing her too.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 20, 2019)

Not wanting to do business with someone due to their behaviour is fair enough. Idk who the guy is but seems to be a pattern in the allegations.

 Removing credits not so much imho.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2019)

Ghostwind said:


> Your opinion. There are legions of us who feel is it more than appropriate and are waiting to see if EN World takes the next step to strip him of his Ennies.




EN World (and I) are not connected to the ENnies any more, and I don't have any insight into what they'll decide. I do know they announced that something was forthcoming.


----------



## Ghostwind (Feb 20, 2019)

Morrus said:


> EN World (and I) are not connected to the ENnies any more, and I don't have any insight into what they'll decide. I do know they announced that something was forthcoming.




I hope that announcement is sooner than later.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure I'd go that far as to say we endorse his behavior.
> 
> But, removing the credits does say that we don't.




I'd like to point something out real quick since this came up in earlier statements.  This is a great example of disagreement without endorsing bad behavior.  It also shows that we don't have to be afraid of disagreeing with one another.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (Feb 21, 2019)

Vexorg said:


> Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?




I am conflicted about this.

On one hand, the man did contribute to the book. He did work and I believe people should be rewarded for their work.

On the other hand, removing his name means that his victims aren't going to be reminded of him and what he did every time they page through the book.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 21, 2019)

Looks like Wizards put up an official statement... https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dndstatement


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2019)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I know, I was in Frank's game that got cancelled and was planning on going to his Frankenparty.  But calling someone rapey is way beyond lecherous or even harrassing behavior.
> 
> Note: I don't know Frank personally, but throwing rape around casually is a bit much.




I agree, this is completely unacceptable. I'd report it, but obviously the mods have already 
seen it and apparently don't agree.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 21, 2019)

<My opinion>

It's possible to be a good writer and also a terrible person.
It's not possible to reward the one without also rewarding the other.

So I support the decision to strip him of his accolades--not because I feel his work never happened or wasn't good, but because I feel his terrible behavior must never be rewarded or ignored.

</My opinion>


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I am scared...
> 
> Could we please just go back to talking about game mechanics and the art and science of RPGs? ...
> 
> I'm still sad.




You are scared.  You are sad.  So we should all be silent, and not talk about such matters.  I am sure, you are not comfortable.  My sympathies for that.

But I am sure Zak's victims were not comfortable.  I am sure my wife was not comfortable when she was sexually harassed by a member of a convention staff a couple of years back, either.  

Being silent wasn't what dealt with that convention staff member.  People were silent about Zak, and that didn't seem to make anyone safer.  It looks like if we remained silent, Zak would still be able to victimize others.  If we remain silent, other men will not recognize that such behavior will not be acceptable any longer, and they will not know of the consequences.  And the young daughter of a friend of mine, who I recently taught how to play, who has become a GM in her own right, will have to suffer, because no change happens in silence.

Silence, Celebrim, is tacit acceptance of the bad behavior, in a practical sense.  So, no, your discomfort is not sufficient to stop this discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> You are scared.  You are sad.  So we should all be silent, and not talk about such matters.  I am sure, you are not comfortable.  My sympathies for that.
> 
> But I am sure Zak's victims were not comfortable.  I am sure my wife was not comfortable when she was sexually harassed by a member of a convention staff a couple of years back, either.
> 
> ...




Oh please.  It's more than obvious that all your assertions have nothing to do with my stance.  I have no problem with speaking out against sexual harassment, although, speaking out against sexual harassment hardly takes much bravery in this day and age.   As some have pointed out in this thread, there are tons of sexual harassers out there taking a stand against sexual harassment.  Harvey Weinstein even got awards for his work.  

Brave Umbram, moderator at EnWorld, takes a big stand against sexual harassment by speaking up in forums he controls with approval of the owner taking a majority opinion?   While we have a an explicit no politics rule that basically amounts to no politics but mine?   This isn't courage.  This isn't speaking out.  This isn't doing anything.  Who do you think you are standing up to?  This is just another trainwreck of a thread on an internet forum that isn't going to stop one person from being harassed or heal one victim of the harassment.  I wish that these problems could go away if we just keyboard warriored hard enough.   It's the idea that we need another one of these threads that I object to, where you go around banning people in the name of making the world safe from sexual harassment.

What I think is that a person who rapes someone doesn't really think, "I'm not going to do this because I know society disapproves of it."  People who get to the point where they are willing to do that to another human being aren't really thinking, "If only society disapproved of this more, I wouldn't do it.", and they sure as heck don't care about how much we have to say on an internet forum.  I mean seriously, do you really think people engage in rape because they think society thinks it is acceptable, or do you not think it is possible that they don't care what society thinks and that for many the very fact that they are transgressing on societies mores is akin to the power trip they are feeling transgressing on someone's person.   I mean seriously, I wrote very strongly against the Supreme Court opinion a 11 years ago in Kennedy vs. Louisiana, which outlawed the death penalty for violent pedophiles.  But I didn't think ever that the fact that we had a growing number of states that were willing to apply the death penalty in the most incontrovertible cases of violent abuse short of death was going to actually stop sickos from raping kids.  But, you know, if you want to speak out with me against Kennedy vs. Louisana and the awful legal reasoning that was behind it, I'd be all for that.  

I don't know where this comes from.  Maybe in your circles rape had been considered hitherto an 'ok' thing that we just tolerate or something, and now you are feeling guilty about that and think well we better change that, but I don't ever recall being near anyone that suggested rape was an OK thing.  And heck, my standards on sexual behavior tend to view merely consensual as a really low bar to be passing.   I'm not inside this gaming industry sub-culture, and maybe you are, but is it really true that know lots of men that are like OK with rape?   Is that the problem here, that you know all these guys that are like down with rape and have never been told 'don't rape' and I in my naivety don't?   

I tell you what, you want to join me in condemning the porn industry as exploitive and denigrating?  

Or is this really not the place to be doing that?


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Silence, Celebrim, is tacit acceptance of the bad behavior.  So, no, your discomfort is not sufficient to stop this discussion.




There's probably a reason Celebrim feels uncomfortable when these issues come up.  Maybe before he continues to involve himself in this conversation, he should talk about that.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> There's probably a reason Celebrim feels uncomfortable when these issues come up.  Maybe before he continues to involve himself in this conversation, he should talk about that.




Just thought I'd quote that before you get a chance to think better of it.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Just thought I'd quote that before you get a chance to think better of it.




Why?  Because you assume I'm a liar?  Because you assume I'm trying to trick you?  Because I can't be earnest in the things I say?

There's a reason I'm not engaging in this discussion.  One side wants to have a discussion.  The other side wants to pretend everyone else is a bunch of liars.

I meant it honestly.  If discussion of this subject makes you uncomfortable, you _should_ talk about that.  Talking helps.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> You are scared.  You are sad.  So we should all be silent, and not talk about such matters.  I am sure, you are not comfortable.  My sympathies for that.




I too wish we could all go back to talking about mechanics, fun game worlds, and plot ideas for our pretend games.  I'm not entirely comfortable with the realization the hobby I've been involved with for nearly thirty years now has often times been an environment where many people either didn't feel welcome or were outright victimized.  But I'd rather be uncomfortable and talk about it than ignore the issue because sticking my head in the sand means sitting by while other people are hurt.  

If someone doesn't wish to discuss the topic on a message board that's just fine and it's easy enough to avoid the topic in places like this because you can simple skip over the thread.  But if anyone sees bad behavior while at a convention or a game store they should speak up.  People have a harder time getting away with harassment in an environment where it's not tolerated.  Confrontation is often uncomfortable but I'd feel even more uncomfortable if I sat by and just let bad people continue to do bad things.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Why?




Because it's an egregious violation of the forum rules.  Not that I ever report anyone, but I appreciate the irony. 



> If discussion of this subject makes you uncomfortable...




I've made it perfectly clear that the subject of sexual harassment isn't one that I'm uncomfortable with, or uncomfortable discussing - much less condemning.   What I am uncomfortable with, as you put it, is this discussion and not the topic generally.  

And I have a lot reasons for that, but ironically the letter of rules here at EnWorld make it against the rules to even tell you the first reason for that that comes to mind.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I'd like to respond to this a bit:  There is tolerance of disagreement, and then there's tolerance of bad behavior.  These are not the same.
> 
> If you are a troll, or otherwise not in the dialogue in good faith, we don't need to tolerate your position.  If you are in denial of facts for your own benefit, we don't need to tolerate your disagreement.




Respectfully, I'm not sure all of us agree with who or what is a troll or who is arguing in good faith or not. We each have various levels of sensitivity and I have seen many act quite hyperbolic in this thread but I would not be so quick to judge them as not debating this topic in good faith.


----------



## evileeyore (Feb 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is probably an officer in need of more training.



He probably was very well trained, in the Duluth Model.






Umbran said:


> I'd like to respond to this a bit:  There is tolerance of disagreement, and then there's tolerance of bad behavior.  These are not the same.



This is true.  And it's great when one side consistently gets to decide that disagreement _is_ bad behavior.  It has a real chilling effect on the disagreers...







Umbran said:


> Silence, Celebrim, is tacit acceptance of the bad behavior.



Very good point, it's why I decided to stop being silent here today.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Because it's an egregious violation of the forum rules.  Not that I ever report anyone, but I appreciate the irony.



Telling someone they ought to talk about the things that make them uncomfortable is a violation of the rules?



> I've made it perfectly clear that the subject of sexual harassment isn't one that I'm uncomfortable with, or uncomfortable discussing - much less condemning.   What I am uncomfortable with, as you put it, is this discussion and not the topic generally.
> 
> And I have a lot reasons for that, but ironically the letter of rules here at EnWorld make it against the rules to even tell you the first reason for that that comes to mind.



Somehow, I doubt telling a personal story of what particularly makes you so uncomfortable is against the rules.

I went and re-read the rules before I hit post, they're surprisingly short.  I'm not sure which rule you seem to be accusing me of breaking.  Since this _entire thread_ is against the RAW, and you've been freely posting in it, perhaps you should consider this your opportunity.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Telling someone they ought to talk about the things that make them uncomfortable is a violation of the rules?




No, but stating "There's probably a reason Celebrim feels uncomfortable when these issues come up." in the context of a conversation about sexual harassment and rape is, per: "Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others..."

It's a vague rule, but if it doesn't apply to innuendo concerning my sexual past, I'm not sure when it could ever be applied.  But, let's presume you didn't mean it how it sounds.



> Somehow, I doubt telling a personal story of what particularly makes you so uncomfortable is against the rules.




Well, first of all, if there was a personal story, I'd certainly not feel compelled to share it publicly.  And secondly, what I was thinking of was not a personal story.



> Since this _entire thread_ is against the RAW, and you've been freely posting in it, perhaps you should consider this your opportunity.




Well, there is that...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Being silent wasn't what dealt with that convention staff member.  People were silent about Zak, and that didn't seem to make anyone safer.  It looks like if we remained silent, Zak would still be able to victimize others.  If we remain silent, other men will not recognize that such behavior will not be acceptable any longer, and they will not know of the consequences.  And the young daughter of a friend of mine, who I recently taught how to play, who has become a GM in her own right, will have to suffer, because no change happens in silence.
> 
> Silence, Celebrim, is tacit acceptance of the bad behavior, in a practical sense.  So, no, your discomfort is not sufficient to stop this discussion.




One of my religious teachers once said that evil likes to hide in darkness.  I’d have to say it likes silence at least as much.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> No, but stating "There's probably a reason Celebrim feels uncomfortable when these issues come up." in the context of a conversation about sexual harassment and rape is, per: "Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others..."
> 
> It's a vague rule, but if it doesn't apply to innuendo concerning my sexual past, I'm not sure when it could ever be applied.  But, let's presume you didn't mean it how it sounds.



Speaking of _ascribing motives to others_, pot meet kettle.  I actually took great care to choose my words as to not imply you are responsible for some kind of bad behaviour.  My words meant exactly what they said: that you have a reason for feeling uncomfortable and that talking about those things helps.

See, this is the problem with assuming the people on the other side of the discussion are all liars and thieves.  You start _assuming_ things about their motives.  Reading into their words and finding things that aren't there.



> Well, first of all, if there was a personal story, I'd certainly not feel *compelled* to share it publicly.  And secondly, what I was thinking of was not a personal story.



Strange.  I don't recall using Dominate Person on you.  In fact, I don't even recall suggesting you tell _us_.  I suggested you talk about it.  Doesn't have to be to me, or this forum.  And you certainly don't _have to_.  

Maybe you have.  Maybe you haven't.  Whichever way you cut it, it still sounds like you should talk to _someone_.


----------



## ccs (Feb 21, 2019)

I wonder if the OP now realizes why the comments weren't enabled in the initial article?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Speaking of _ascribing motives to others_, pot meet kettle.  I actually took great care to choose my words as to not imply you are responsible for some kind of bad behaviour.  My words meant exactly what they said: that you have a reason for feeling uncomfortable and that talking about those things helps.
> 
> See, this is the problem with assuming the people on the other side of the discussion are all liars and thieves.  You start _assuming_ things about their motives.  Reading into their words and finding things that aren't there.
> 
> ...




At this point, I'm not even sure what you are going on about.   What reason do you think I have?   What is the point of the above post?  Who is this mysterious someone that I should talk to and what do you think I should talk about with them?  

Did I not make very clear, twice now, that I wasn't uncomfortable with the topic of sexual harassment, but that I was unhappy about this conversation? 

And so far as that goes, to the extent that my feelings are political and religious, what makes you think I'm not involved in conversations about those topics elsewhere where they are appropriate and expected?


----------



## Immortal Sun (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> At this point, I'm not even sure what you are going on about.   What reason do you think I have?   What is the point of the above post?  Who is this mysterious someone that I should talk to and what do you think I should talk about with them?
> 
> Did I not make very clear, twice now, that I wasn't uncomfortable with the topic of sexual harassment, but that I was unhappy about this conversation?
> 
> And so far as that goes, to the extent that my feelings are political and religious, what makes you think I'm not involved in conversations about those topics elsewhere where they are appropriate and expected?




Enjoy the thread then.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Enjoy the thread then.




No, seriously, who is this mysterious someone that I should talk to, and what do you think I should talk about with them?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

Well, I dunno exactly what I’m supposed to do but I do know that threads like this have certainly influenced where I spend money in the hobby. 

So it has had an effect at least on me. What else I’m supposed to do kinda escapes me.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> He probably was very well trained, in the Duluth Model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh please.

Are we really going to go down this road?  Let's compare things shall we?  A poster here, after repeatedly violating board rules in numerous threads, specifically compared what we're doing to murdering innocent people (lynching) and got banned.  After months, if not years, of bad behavior.  Every possible opportunity was afforded to this individual before getting ejected from the community.  And this is chilling?

Or, (sorry about this [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]) the comparison between state sponsored public torture of political prisoners by one of the most repressive regimes in modern history (Maoist China) and the MeToo movement.  

See, there's disagreement and discussion and then there's stuff like that.  And EVERY FREAKING DISCUSSION we have about harassment in the hobby brings out these exact same comparisons.  Every time.  We have to wade through post after post after post of hysterical hyperbole and people trying to derail the conversation (join me in deploring porn?  WTF?).

If people were actually capable of being able to talk about this issue without dragging in all their own personal baggage and ludicrous hyperbole, we'd actually maybe be able to do something constructive.  But, no, just like every other time this has come up, we have to flail around blindly.  It's incredibly frustrating.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Feb 21, 2019)

John Lynch2 said:


> So does the industry have a threshold on when it takes action? Is 1 allegation sufficient? 5? 20? Because I doubt very many people were surprised by this recent news. Definitely sadenned. But unfortunately not surprised. How many other professionals have met this threshold but are simply flying under the radar until the next lot of bad press swings their way? Because bad press seems to be the only thing to galvanise WotC and OneBookshelf into action thus far.
> 
> Abuses that occur at work are certainly something that an employer should investigate and action as appropriate (I also believe most work places would refer the matter to police wherever they can. Something I doubt WotC or OneBookshelf are doing. So trying to describe this as a "work place incident" isn't the most helpful for the discussion).
> 
> But if we are going down that road: What is the industry doing in regards to Bill Webb? From what I read at Enworld that had witnesses! Has he been at a PaizoCon since the allegations came to light? Will his work be removed from OneBookshelf? If not, what's the threshold/policy? Are people comfortable with that threshold/policy?




When you do work with a company, your contract typically has some sort of conduct clause. They don’t have to prove it, it’s not a court case. The bad press itself is sufficient for them to break ties.

That is, the bad press itself is specifically the breach of contract.

It’s not their job to pursue legal options, and they probably have no standing to pursue the crime legally. They can investigate the breach of workplace etiquette, but as they are not the aggrieved party, they generally can’t go to the police. It’s the victim that has to press charges, and the company isn’t the victim.

Each company has to determine how they’ll handle such things, and like it or not, there are potential legal ramifications. But the “Me Too” movement has had a lot of high profile firings of powerful and wealthy people. This has both empowered other companies, and set up litigation that other companies will follow closely since it will set up legal thresholds as to when you can fire somebody without legal exposure. The threshold for a contractor or consultant would be lower than an employee.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2019)

> If people were actually capable of being able to talk about this issue without dragging in all their own personal baggage and ludicrous hyperbole, we'd actually maybe be able to do something constructive.




Asking people to leave their baggage at home can be a bit of an ask.  People carry baggage for reasons.

However, keeping hyperbole to a minimum is DEFINITELY achievable, and helps conversation stay off the hidden reefs of everyone’s issues.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, I dunno exactly what I’m supposed to do but I do know that threads like this have certainly influenced where I spend money in the hobby.
> 
> So it has had an effect at least on me. What else I’m supposed to do kinda escapes me.




Threads like this have made me more aware of the problems in our gaming subculture. I think as a result of that, I do approach situations with a different perspective and I watch for harassing behavior now more than I would have without the awareness level. I also find I am more likely to speak out rather than let it blow on by. None of that means I always agree on the right approach to something or agree with every allegation or claim, but I do evaluate them differently.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 21, 2019)

Personally, I find that too much energy is wasted in these conversations engaging with the naysayers and the trolls, and rather than actually _having_ the conversation we end up running in circles trying to _justify_ having the conversation at all, until things get too salty and the thread gets shut down. 

Which is exactly what the trolls are trying to accomplish in the first place. 

So I suggest we just ignore them and go on with the conversation. There’s no law that says every obnoxious newcomer with a hot take needs to be responded to. 

In other words, we need to stop letting the meta-conversation derail the actual conversation. 

Here’s where I’m at. There’s a common refrain throughout this whole debacle about how the warning signs about Zak were always there, or how people have been calling him out on this crap for years. If that’s true, and I have no reason to believe it isn’t, why did it take until now for the gaming community as a whole to do something about it? What more could have been done? 

I’m not sure the answer is anything at this point, and I’m growing more and more confident that’s not the right question. Part of the reason these threads get bogged down in is constantly rehashing the past. So instead I wonder; where do we go from here? How do we do more than simply _react_ to bad behavior, but instead actively prevent it? This is a community driven hobby; I refuse to believe that we lack any kind of social power. But how to harness it in a way that’s productive and constructive, rather than simply reactive and retributive (not that such actions are not also important and effective) is what I’ve been mulling over today. 

I don’t have any answers just yet, but I’m curious if anyone does.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 21, 2019)

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I thought your post was very thoughtfully written, and I appreciated that you were able to express your stance on a very charged topic in a poignant manner even if I disagree.

This part struck a chord with me.



Celebrim said:


> I don't think we are actually turning some social corner.  I think mostly #metoo is advanced for self-centered reasons and I see no sign things are going to get better.  I don't think taking a stand is going to make abusers less likely to be abusive.  I think real progress and change is made one person at a time, through personal and meaningful relationships.



But we _are_ turning a social corner.  People on talk radio and television can't stop talking about how things are changing and how confusing it is.  Some comedians are complaining about how they can't tell the same kinds of jokes they used to, workplaces now have mandatory sexual harassment training, the Pope is no longer denying but actively speaking out against sexual assault within the church.  Maybe it's not a full 90-degree turn, but society is definitely changing direction.  If you feel sad, maybe take heart in that.

It's  trendy nowadays to repost the #MeToo hashtag on social media, but it took decades of hard work and sacrifice to get us to that point.  We can all remember a time when it was risky and self-destructive to speak out against an abusive partner.    Victims of abuse today have more support and respect now than they had when I learned that monsters are real.  

Will taking a stand make abusers less likely to be abusive?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it _has_ made abuse harder to hide, harder to ignore, and harder to profit from.  That is real progress.  So close, personal relationships aren't the only ways to change things:  tens of thousands of people taking a stand can be pretty darned effective too.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And this is chilling?




How much leeway do you think I got?  I've already mentioned a few things outside of the realm of gaming.



> Or, (sorry about this [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]) the comparison between state sponsored public torture of political prisoners by one of the most repressive regimes in modern history (Maoist China) and the MeToo movement.




The problem is that I can't really explain where I was going with that.  It's just going to snowball into a larger political discussion if I start bringing in examples, but I did point at some things that would make interesting reading for the interested student when I was trying to 'reach across the aisle' and find some common ground.  

And yes, I do think there is a connection between some modern political movements and Maoist China.  

I don't think that the #metoo movement is a problem, and I welcomed the long overdue house cleaning in the movie industry (and the gaming industry?), but I do think it has gotten hijacked in ways that are detrimental to the goal of outing what Umbran called the "missing stairs".  For example, can I be positive about #metoo but critical of #believeallwomen, or is that far enough beyond the pale that the ban hammer comes down?  Can I suggest that the whole thing started out as a political move that backfired, and that the politicking over it has gotten out of hand because it hurts the cause of those women who need to be believed?  Is it enough to say I believe Mandy, and that I hope that no further awards to Zak or forthcoming, or do I also have to show my purity to the cause by demanding shows like removing him from the credits of a book already published, rescinding awards already awarded, and generally trying to a modern reenactment of a Puritan community shunning someone, or the Ministry of Truth trying to repair history?   Because that's what this sort of thing feels like to me.   I said before that nothing we as a gaming community could do could come close to the embarrassing behavior of the Motion Picture Arts Academy, but when they finally decided they didn't want Roman Polanski as a member any more they at least didn't try to pretend they'd honored him in the past, and if they had have been, I wouldn't have believed that they were motivated by sympathy for his victim.  Nor for that matter do I believe Hollywood has really reformed, and I won't until they no longer expect women to undress to be 'taken seriously'.

If people want go further than just not wanting to be associated with him any more, they have a right to do so, but I feel then like maybe I ought to walk away slowly from the mob with its pitchforks and torches and schadenfreude, especially given that the same crowd doesn't limit its targets to people like sexual predators.



> We have to wade through post after post after post of hysterical hyperbole and people trying to derail the conversation (join me in deploring porn?  WTF?).




No, see this is exactly an example of the problem.  You think I'm derailing the conversation by deploring porn.  But, I'm inclined to see a connection between the acceptance of pornography and the acceptance of degrading and abusive treatment of women and see it as completely on topic.  I don't imagine I'm alone in that.  Now, I've been banned for one thread for even weakly implying that years before this scandal came out when Zac was parlaying his friendship with a bunch of beautiful women into stardom in the geek community, because well that sure reflected well on us as a community didn't it, but now that this has come out I'm willing to risk it again.  You see in my mind anyone who is willing to stay silent about the porn industry is aiding and abetting the abuse and degradation of women, so anyone that is unwilling to join me in that unpopular opinion (at least in these circles) I wouldn't trust to not stay silent when there was some "missing stair" around that needed protecting any more than some here wouldn't trust me unless I'm pumping out slogans like 'believe all women' or whatever else is on the twitter feed.



> But, no, just like every other time this has come up, we have to flail around blindly.  It's incredibly frustrating.




You don't have to tell me that.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 21, 2019)

*spends a couple of hours writing a thoughtful post*

*clicks the Post Quick Reply button, page refreshes*

...wow.  Things really took a turn.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> *spends a couple of hours writing a thoughtful post*
> 
> *clicks the Post Quick Reply button, page refreshes*
> 
> ...wow.  Things really took a turn.




That sucks. I'm sure you tried it, but just in case, sometimes I have been lucky when pressing the _return page_ that it retains all I have written.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> But we _are_ turning a social corner.  People on talk radio and television can't stop talking about how things are changing and how confusing it is.  Some comedians are complaining about how they can't tell the same kinds of jokes they used to, workplaces now have mandatory sexual harassment training, the Pope is no longer denying but actively speaking out against sexual assault within the church.  Maybe it's not a full 90-degree turn, but society is definitely changing direction.




Oh that?  No, that's not changing direction.  That's marketing.   That's not even something worthy of applause.  That's an example of losing the plot along the way.  

Let's avoid getting into the Pope, as if we didn't have enough to discuss.  Let's just say that I'm proudly a member of a community that has been protesting the Catholic church for like 400 years and leave it at that.



> If you feel sad, maybe take heart in that.




I take heart that a few notable well known figures got what they had coming, if even by accident.  What makes me sad is that we clearly as a society didn't change.  We just incorporated new hashtags on to the banners of political purity, and then went after the entirely wrong targets for the entirely wrong reasons.  Sometimes, but may be not always, the comedians have a point.  Don Quixote had a better sense of what to tilt at and why.  It's extremely important to distinguish between stuff that is relatively innocent and stuff that is not and not make the whole thing collapse out of ridiculousness.

Pick out an example so you'll know what I'm talking about: "Santa Baby".  You take on that, and you just diminish the entire movement.  Not only is it exceptionally easy to show that in context it's not a 'rapey' song, but rather 'innocent flirtation' but by treating that as something that needs condemning and not a target like say the depiction of women in rap songs, you make it clear how hypocritical you are and how false your puritanical stance is.  People start ignoring you.  



> We can all remember a time when it was risky and self-destructive to speak out against an abusive partner.    Victims of abuse today have more support and respect now than they had when I learned that monsters are real.




When did you learn that monsters were real?  Did you not read Brother's Grimm?  I think we do kids a disservice maybe by excising the sexual and emotional abuse out of those stories since in many cases what they were actually about.  This isn't the first time this has come up, and I'm not sure if I'm utterly niave or overly jaded.  First someone says that everyone was rape positive until recently, and now you've said you learned monsters were real.  Until recently I attended a church that still was part of the Underground Railroad, and was still maintaining a secret infrastructure for smuggling slaves out of places where they were held and into safehouses and on to new lives.  So, there's my background, I still knew the Underground Railroad was a thing.



> But it _has_ made abuse harder to hide, harder to ignore, and harder to profit from.  That is real progress.  So close, personal relationships aren't the only ways to change things:  tens of thousands of people taking a stand can be pretty darned effective too.




Emmm…. see, that's complicated.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2019)

> So instead I wonder; where do we go from here? How do we do more than simply react to bad behavior, but instead actively prevent it? This is a community driven hobby; I refuse to believe that we lack any kind of social power. But how to harness it in a way that’s productive and constructive, rather than simply reactive and retributive (not that such actions are not also important and effective) is what I’ve been mulling over today.




I’ve had the misfortune to personally know & socialize with 3 people who eventually got revealed as sexual predators.  2 were in the hobby.  Part of what they are makes them hard to detect, even for professionals.  So _prevention_, while being a laudable goal, may not be a feasible one.  The mantra about “see something, say something” may in fact be the best first step we have available to us. 

That’s when the hard part begins.  Once the masks get pulled away, what do we do?

In most cases, as noted above, few people will have any standing to pursue legal actions.  But like some are now saying of R. Kelly, we don’t need to keep supplying people with a platform in our community.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

But, [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], the topic isn't #Metoo, or #Believeallwomen or Roman Polanski or the connection between harassment and the porn industry.  Every single one of those things are not what's being talked about here.  The only thing you've brought up, that's even remotely directly connected is Zak S's original rise in geek stardom.  And, again, no one is talkign about going any further than excluding him from the hobby community, so, the whole "maybe I ought to walk away slowly from the mob with its pitchforks and torches and schadenfreude" is really out in left field.

So, to me anyway, bringing in all these things is just derailing the conversation.  These are your issues.  These are things that concern you and I respect that.  But, this is not the place for that conversation.  This is the place for us, as a community, to talk about how to deal with this specific issue.  

Which is the only way that this conversation can possibly be useful.  Broadening the scope to what you are talking about will swirl down the drain faster than belly lint.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I don't think we are actually turning some social corner.  I think mostly #metoo is advanced for self-centered reasons and I see no sign things are going to get better.




While some may be co-opting #MeToo for self-centered reasons beyond revealing hidden predators*, it has given voice to victims of criminal activity that historically goes unreported more often than not.  Some of the people revealed were- up until now- untouchable.  Not so much anymore.

And that’s a good thing, in my book.









* I haven’t seen any evidence of that happening in significant numbers myself


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Here’s where I’m at. There’s a common refrain throughout this whole debacle about how the warning signs about Zak were always there, or how people have been calling him out on this crap for years. If that’s true, and I have no reason to believe it isn’t, why did it take until now for the gaming community as a whole to do something about it? What more could have been done?




Now that is a good set of questions.  And I really wish that if we were going to have another one of these debacles that it would have started there.

I don't know the answer, because I don't have an insiders perspective.  I can imagine two possible theories, but I don't know which one is true.  

a) Umbran's missing stairs theory.  This seems to apply to several much bigger industry figures than Zak as well, although Zak's behavior seems to have been notably worse and more abusive than anything I'd heard of so far (until this other scandal I just learned about broke, but I'm still researching that one).   In that model, lots of people knew or strongly suspected that Zak's relationship to women was very unhealthy (heck, can we talk about the content of 'Frost Bitten & Mutilated', or is that beyond the pale because then we'd have to deal with the fact so many people liked it, and well obviously there is nothing wrong with that, right?), but because he was so obviously talented and because people thought it was healthy for the hobby for people to associate the game with people who have sex even if it was porn stars, people decided that it just couldn't come out.   It would be interesting to see who would admit that they knew or should have known, but ironically, because they would be committing career suicide to do so because the mob would surely come for them as well, what we'll instead get is a lot of shows of virtue and only the vaguest sort of apologies.

b) Zak is a charismatic person who by even his accuser's account was very good at manipulating people and covering his tracks, and was friends with people and people just didn't want to believe things like that of him.   I'll fully confess, that my first instincts on Zak were to chastise myself for stereotyping Zak because he was a male porn star and went out of my way in my internal conversation to humanize him and to try to think of him as a person.   So likely, if I'd had any real interaction with Zak, I probably would have been pretty easy to take in, because simply you don't want to be that person who is always judging people, but that cool Christ like guy that can hang out with 'Drunks & Tax Collectors' (you see the self-flattery thing going there).  Bullies are rarely unpopular people.  They are usually very well liked.

I don't know.  There are probably 'c's and 'd's in this as well that are beyond my imagination.  One thing I will say that I've said before, I was very skeptical of treating Zak like a star in the industry on the basis of the that he was a porn star and somehow that was good image for the industry, and I was really uncomfortable with all the "porn stars are cool and nothing bad will come from linking gaming to porn".   I'm reminded of my minority opinion that the Occult scare was bad for the hobby, while so many have argued that negative publicity is good publicity.   No, bad publicity is bad publicity.



> I’m not sure the answer is anything at this point, and I’m growing more and more confident that’s not the right question. Part of the reason these threads get bogged down in is constantly rehashing the past. So instead I wonder; where do we go from here? How do we do more than simply _react_ to bad behavior, but instead actively prevent it?




And here is where we really depart ways.  I don't believe the problem is we have a "rape culture", and so I don't think that a cultural movement is going to dent this.  The only thing that can dent this from a preventative perspective is those much disparaged personal relationships.   I think maybe social power might help us treat it seriously when comes out but I don't think it attacks the roots of the problem nor do I think social power is going to make it more likely to come out. 



> I don’t have any answers just yet, but I’m curious if anyone does.




History of humanity doesn't suggest easy answers will be forthcoming.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 21, 2019)

I learned monsters were real when I was 13, and I didn't learn it from _fairy tales_. 
You know what?  I should have stopped reading right here:


Celebrim said:


> Oh that?  No, that's not changing direction.  That's marketing.



That was my cue, and I missed it.  Goodnight everyone.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I take heart that a few notable well known figures got what they had coming, if even by accident. What makes me sad is that we clearly as a society didn't change. We just incorporated new hashtags on to the banners of political purity, and then went after the entirely wrong targets for the entirely wrong reasons. Sometimes, but may be not always, the comedians have a point. Don Quixote had a better sense of what to tilt at and why. It's extremely important to distinguish between stuff that is relatively innocent and stuff that is not and not make the whole thing collapse out of ridiculousness.




Maybe it's because I'm not American and I don't live in the US.  I live in a country where up until about two or three years ago, major corporations had no local harassment policies.  I live next to a country of over a billion people where this year is the first year a civil sexual harassment case is being heard.  The notion that things like #Metoo have had no impact is really ignoring the massive impact it has had.  Is it perfect?  Of course not.  But, focusing on things that have gone badly while ignoring the good seems a poor way to go forward.

And, AGAIN, you are trying to derail the conversation, digging into things like The War on Christmas and Baby It's Cold Outside.  Good grief.  Is it really that hard to stick to the point.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], the topic isn't #Metoo, or #Believeallwomen or Roman Polanski or the connection between harassment and the porn industry.




I'm not sure that's at all clear.  I'm not the only one, and probably not the first one, to link Zak S's public outing to the larger social gestalt.  

And in any event, it is I think much better to talk about the larger problem than to linger over the details of this particular tragedy except to the extent of, "How do we keep this from happening?"



> the whole "maybe I ought to walk away slowly from the mob with its pitchforks and torches and schadenfreude" is really out in left field.




Not to me.



> So, to me anyway, bringing in all these things is just derailing the conversation.  These are your issues.  These are things that concern you and I respect that.  But, this is not the place for that conversation.  This is the place for us, as a community, to talk about how to deal with this specific issue.




Zak does get any more industry honors.  We make this public enough, as is was just done by EnWorld, that then people can decide if they would not want to buy or market the guys products.  Done. 

People a lot closer to the actual persons in this tragedy and actually care about them in more than just theory decide what to do to bring healing to Mandy and the other victims, and what if anything is to be done about Zak (because surely if something isn't done, this isn't going to be the last incidence of caused pain).

We strongly tell the community that they aren't responsible for dealing with this specific issue because dealing with 'this specific issue' is a good example of losing the path.  They are only responsible for dealing with the issues in their own lives.  This vicarious inspection of other peoples pain isn't healthy.  Heck on that front, I wouldn't rescind the awards but that's not my business or my call.  I didn't give them.  Someone else is going to have to make that tough call.  If it were me, I could think of only one reason to do it - you wanted to bring even more attention to this, maybe get some more mainstream coverage.   But, even that, well I would hope for example Mandy was consulted as to whether she wanted more coverage.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Maybe it's because I'm not American and I don't live in the US.  I live in a country where up until about two or three years ago, major corporations had no local harassment policies.




I thought about bringing that up a couple of times but I didn't want to appear to be telling you about your own country, which you surely know more about than me.

Yes, Japan has a huge way to go on this.



> I live next to a country of over a billion people where this year is the first year a civil sexual harassment case is being heard.  The notion that things like #Metoo have had no impact is really ignoring the massive impact it has had.  Is it perfect?  Of course not.  But, focusing on things that have gone badly while ignoring the good seems a poor way to go forward.




I may have the opposite bias.  But if in fact our ugly affairs over here in the USA has had some sort of real positive impact outside the USA, then that really does truly hearten me.



> And, AGAIN, you are trying to derail the conversation, digging into things like The War on Christmas and Baby It's Cold Outside.  Good grief.  Is it really that hard to stick to the point.




Tell me what this point is?


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> I learned monsters were real when I was 13, and I didn't learn it from _fairy tales_.
> You know what?  I should have stopped reading right here:
> That was my cue, and I missed it.  Goodnight everyone.




I just want to say that you two, as well as others like Hussar and Danny, were/are having, from my perspective, a pretty meaningful conversation in a very respectful way despite being on opposite ends. It is a conversation that I wish was had more when these kinds of topics arise.


----------



## evileeyore (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Are we really going to go down this road?



Clearly.

This attempt at discussion chilling is noted.



> Let's compare things shall we?



Not actually concerned with one guy who probably did deserve it, we all saw how he posted....

/looks at what was just written, recognizes the social currency forever spent...

:|






CleverNickName said:


> Some comedians are complaining about how they can't tell the same kinds of jokes they used to, workplaces now have mandatory sexual harassment training, the Pope is no longer denying but actively speaking out against sexual assault within the church.



[musical notes and sing-song voice]
One of these things is not like the other...
[/notes and voice]






Celebrim said:


> And yes, I do think there is a connection between some modern political movements and Maoist China.



For me it's more a connection between the progress movement and Modern China with it's Social Credit Score.

Thankfully we aren't there yet... or...  wait...



> I hope that no further awards to Zak or forthcoming...



Is Zak unredeemable?

Can he never make amends for his abusive past?

Is his Social Credit Score forever to be null?






Celebrim said:


> "Santa Baby".



"Baby It's Cold Outside", but yes exactly.






Hussar said:


> But, [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], the topic isn't #Metoo, or #Believeallwomen or Roman Polanski or the connection between harassment and the porn industry.  Every single one of those things are not what's being talked about here.



It's all linked.  It's all one big movement.  One big ball of progress being shoved in multiple directions.

In some directions, it's been great.  In others, it's not good.



> And, again, no one is talkign about going any further than excluding him from the hobby community, so, the whole "maybe I ought to walk away slowly from the mob with its pitchforks and torches and schadenfreude" is really out in left field.



Will the mob ever allow him back?  If it's a definitive no, and I'm pretty sure it's a definitive no, maybe you can see our hesitation to trust your mob with those pitchforks and fiery brands.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

I suppose, at the end of the day, the question is less, "what should we do" but, rather, "is there anything we can do, and if there is, is it worth doing?"

Because, I will agree with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] on this, there really isn't a whole lot we can actually do.  

For me, I would be taking people like this off the "special guest list" at conventions and getting the word out to let people make an informed decision about whether or not they want to buy this person's product.  Beyond that, really, there isn't a whole lot we can do.

In this specific example, it really has no personal impact.  I never bought any of Zak S' products and, if you hadn't told me that his name was in the PHB, I wouldn't have actually known.  But, as I mentioned back a few posts, other threads like this HAVE affected my buying practices.  I don't use any Frog God stuff anymore.  Is there anything more I could actually do?  Nope.  Not realistically.

But, getting the word out is a goal in and of itself, IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> /snip
> Will the mob ever allow him back?  If it's a definitive no, and I'm pretty sure it's a definitive no, maybe you can see our hesitation to trust your mob with those pitchforks and fiery brands.




Nice.  We're a "mob" now.  And you wonder why you are having trouble having this discussion with people.

And, how can anyone actually answer that?  Excuse me while I consult my crystal ball?  Maybe my Magic 8 Ball of future prediction of how much people will accept sexual predators into their hobby will result in better answers.

Seriously, how is, "We're not going to buy this guy's products, nor do we want this person to be the "face" of our hobby" turned into "pitchforks and fiery brands"?  

When you characterize the other side of a discussion as a mob, only interested in mob justice, I'm thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, you're part of the problem.  If you are incapable of characterizing the other side of an issue without demonizing and dehumanizing them, don't be shocked when you are no longer invited to the fireside for a chat.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Is Zak unredeemable?
> 
> Can he never make amends for his abusive past?
> 
> ...




Those are hard questions.
*If* we believe in our society a person is redeemable, then stripping one of his accolades does, for me, seem to counter that belief.

The personal issue I have with this is - separating the artist from the artwork. Do we, don't we? Do we not watch Kevin Spacey movies anymore or anything produced by Harvey Weinstein? Am I not allowed to enjoy Woody Allen's _Midnight in Paris_ or Polanski's play-gone-movie, _Carnage?_
There are posters on these boards that routinely quote from Frank Mentzer's RPG material, do we chastise them? Are future generations not permitted to see/read/buy that material, including the RPG work Zak S created but others with already purchased copies can enjoy all they want? I just find it all a bit messy, and hypocritical (myself included).


----------



## evileeyore (Feb 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I don't believe the problem is we have a "rape culture", and so I don't think that a cultural movement is going to dent this.



Ahhhh.... mmmm...

Let me break this into its two constituent parts:



> I don't believe the problem is we have a "rape culture"...



Agreed.



> ...and so I don't think that a cultural movement is going to dent this.



And I disagree.  Clearly the movement has made coming forward easier.

Let me say that again:  Clearly the movement has made coming forward easier.

That is an unconditional good on its own.  Will it stop or slow criminal acts on it's own?  Ahahahahaha.  No.  Criminals gonna criminal...  but... it does mean more victims will come forward, perpetrators will be prosecuted, and hopefully this will result in a reduction.






Hussar said:


> Because, I will agree with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] on this, there really isn't a whole lot we can actually do.



About Zak?  We can have the discussion about whether he can ever redeem himself (and thus by extension any further individuals who get kicked out of the Club of Respectable People Allowed to Have a Career).

I ask in case my future facecrime causes the progress police to ask me to leave social media for the good of my family.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2019)

Gradine said:


> There’s a common refrain throughout this whole debacle about how the warning signs about Zak were always there, or how people have been calling him out on this crap for years. If that’s true, and I have no reason to believe it isn’t, why did it take until now for the gaming community as a whole to do something about it? What more could have been done?
> 
> I’m not sure the answer is anything at this point, and I’m growing more and more confident that’s not the right question. Part of the reason these threads get bogged down in is constantly rehashing the past. So instead I wonder; where do we go from here? How do we do more than simply _react_ to bad behavior, but instead actively prevent it? This is a community driven hobby; I refuse to believe that we lack any kind of social power. But how to harness it in a way that’s productive and constructive, rather than simply reactive and retributive (not that such actions are not also important and effective) is what I’ve been mulling over today.
> 
> I don’t have any answers just yet, but I’m curious if anyone does.



I think it's unrealistic to expect that the RPG hobby community will be wildly different from any other community - assuming it even makes sense to speak of _the_ RPG hobby community. The community/communities are just constituent elements of the societies they belong to, with members united by a shared interest in a particular leisure activity but not necessarily too much else.

I know nothing about angling as a hobby. If it turned out that a prominent figure in the angling hobby scene was a rapist or sexual harasser, and I happened to learn of that, I would be neither shocked nor not shocked. Many unpleasant people will have some hobby community they belong to, simply because many people in contemporary industrial urban communities have hobbies; and some unpleasant people - particularly the ones whose unpleasantness is likely to become widely known about - are prominent in their field.

If it turns out that angling, or RPGing, is _particularly attractive_ as a hobby for rapists and harassers, that's a different thing. It might suggest there is some pathological element to the hobby. But I don't know of any evidence that that is so, at least for RPGing, though if you think it is I'd be interested to hear about it.

Only once on these boards have I had a PM from someone who thought they could guess something about my political/religious beliefs from my RPGing preferences. As it happened, that person was wrong - but very polite about it, so I was in no way offended. But the lesson I take from that is that it is hard to generalise from the fact that someone enjoys RPGing, or even enjoys RPGing _this_ rather than _that_, to broader features/attitudes/behaviours of the person.

And I think this can be true even for very prominent persons. I find that the RPG Pundit's forums convey a particular tone that, to me, is redolent of certain broader attitudes to culture and politics; yet - at least last time I was there - there were moderators whose posting icons/avatars were of Woody Guthrie with the writing on his guitar saying "This Machine Kills Fascists".

If we're talking about what members of the ENWorld community can do, I think one of the simplest things would be for fewer posters to default to masculine pronouns when referring to generic GMs, players etc. It's a very common practice on these boards that I nevertheless find somewhat jarring every time I encounter it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I suppose, at the end of the day, the question is less, "what should we do" but, rather, "is there anything we can do, and if there is, is it worth doing?"
> 
> Because, I will agree with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] on this, there really isn't a whole lot we can actually do.
> 
> ...




I do not buy From God stuff anymore. I will use my existing product though. I also watched House of Cards after Kevin Spacey's misdeeds. 

 In some ways it's what do you do. My mother told me some horrific stories about her first husband in the 60s and 70s but the man has been decent to me over the years and apparently changed his ways. 

 Mum didn't want him at her funeral I passed on her wishes but got over ruled. So what do you do punch out an old man in his 70s triggering a family meltdown and possibly assault charges or keep your mouth shut. I went with keep mouth shut sisters opinion was get over it. 

 I believed my mother I believed Mrs Bobbitt. I saw a case of sexual harassment in the workplace couple of years back she was 16 he was 32. Bosses son, supervisors daughter. Had a word with her and said I would back her but she said she didn't care so what do you do?

 It's a really crap situation to be in, see or hear about. We had a false rape accusation here make news two days ago. Some if they guys I went to school with are kiddie fiddler's but guess what their dad did to them. Some if them got assaulted at home then beaten up at school for being assaulted. 

 Alot of laws pass Ed have been due to what happened. I live in one if the most liberal places on Earth but it wasn't illegal to rape your wife until the mid 80s same thing being gay. My mother was a victim my friend's mother, 2 ex girlfriends and these are just the ones I knew about.


----------



## evileeyore (Feb 21, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Nice.  We're a "mob" now.  And you wonder why you are having trouble having this discussion with people.



I got the word from you Dad!


No really, all funny aside, it's right there in what I quoted from you.  You can hardly expect me to think you'd get upset when I was using your own words.




> And, how can anyone actually answer that?



Rhetoricals aren't meant to be answered.  But you could answer how you'd feel.  How long do you think he should be banished from our "No Bad Peeps Club"?  A year?  Forever?  What would it take for you except his redemption arc was genuine?

(hypothetically presuming he ever bothers trying to become a better person)



> Maybe my Magic 8 Ball of future prediction of how much people will accept sexual predators into their hobby will result in better answers.



Ah, so never.  He can never rise above his past misdeeds, he will forever be a sexual predator.  Okay, at least there is honesty in that.



> Seriously, how is, "We're not going to buy this guy's products, nor do we want this person to be the "face" of our hobby" turned into "pitchforks and fiery brands"?



Ask Ireland about spicy nazi pug jokes.

In my case, I can see where the ball of progress is rolling and I don't like all of it.  I want to be able to make jokes that challenge social conventions and not worry about facing jail time.  I want to see the freedom of speech be upheld and not be slowly eroded until facecrime becomes a reality (did you see that smug smirk!  _J'ACUSSE!_).



> When you characterize the other side of a discussion as a mob, only interested in mob justice, I'm thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, you're part of the problem.  If you are incapable of characterizing the other side of an issue without demonizing and dehumanizing them, don't be shocked when you are no longer invited to the fireside for a chat.



What about when you describe your own side as a mob*... am I allowed to ostracise _you_ from the fires of civility and discussion?  Asking for a friend...


* Yes, I know you were hyperbolically attempting to shame Celebrim over his fears.  So... _J'ACCUSE!_






Sadras said:


> Those are hard questions.



Yes!  And the answers are even harder.

For me?  I have to separate personal feelings* from ethical considerations on this one.  I think yes, he should be allowed to strive for and achieve redemption.



* I always thought Zak was sketchy and the only thing of his I ever read was _Maze of the Blue Medusa_... so... for that last crime alone I think he should be banished to the cornfields.



> *If* we believe in our society a person is redeemable, then stripping one of his accolades does, for me, seem to counter that belief.



That's the general direction I'm driving in here.  Destroying the statues of yesterday to pretend it never happened is a bad road to go down.



> The personal issue I have with this is - separating the artist from the artwork. Do we, don't we?



I've already been doing it for years, why stop now?  I can be informed about where some themes in their work may come from (Lovecraft's racism), but that won't stop me from enjoying their work (Lovecraft's Mythos stories).



> Am I not allowed to enjoy Woody Allen's ... Frank Mentzer's ...



You'll have to pry _What's Up Tiger Lily?_ and BECM from my cold dead grip.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2019)

I just want to assert, quite strongly, that the moral and political equality of _people_ - whatever their sex, gender, race, etc - is not a "social convention". It's a social reality that has been fought for, often quite hard. It doesn't need to be "challenged".


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> /snip
> 
> I ask in case my future facecrime causes the progress police to ask me to leave social media for the good of my family.




And, again, demonizing and dehumanizing the other side.  And you wonder why you have so much trouble having a conversation?



evileeyore said:


> I got the word from you Dad!
> 
> 
> No really, all funny aside, it's right there in what I quoted from you.  You can hardly expect me to think you'd get upset when I was using your own words./snip




Wait, what?  Umm, you realize that I was quoting [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] there right?  In the post where I'm talking about dehumanizing the other side?  

So, no, you didn't get the word from me, you got it from [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION].  You folks are the ones insisting that the mob with pitchforks is out to get you for holding your opinions.  And, again with the hyperbole.  Going to jail for facecrimes?  WTF?

Sigh.  Yup, par for the course.  Derail the discussion as much as possible and then stand back with wide eyed innocence about how it's the other side that's totally unreasonable.  I'm just so freaking sick of it.

I'm done.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Ask Ireland about spicy nazi pug jokes.




That was Scotland - in the UK. Ireland is practically a Free Speech zone compared to the UK these days.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 21, 2019)

pemerton said:


> I just want to assert, quite strongly, that the moral and political equality of _people_ - whatever their sex, gender, race, etc - is not a "social convention". It's a social reality that has been fought for, often quite hard. It doesn't need to be "challenged".




Still a social convention, mostly limited to liberal democracies with Western values. Russia, China, India etc are very different. Go back 50 years it was also different.

 Note 50 years ago was also a social convention. Here they just need to change a single piece of legislation from 1993 which requires 51% of the vote.

 And that's in one of the most liberal countries in the world.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 21, 2019)

This doesn't appear to be a thread about the RPG industry any more, so I think it's done.


----------

