|
In awesome news there is a great new Mothership adventure coming out. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gerdling/a-pound-of-flesh-module-for-mothership-sci-fi-horr For those who don't know Mothership is a OSR inspired D100 system for running sci fi horror adventures in the style of Aliens movies. It's a shockingly well written system and has one great horror adventure out for it already called Dead Planet. AmericanBarbarian fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Feb 11, 2019 |
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Welp. Looks like Zak S is finally done. https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252blog and just to give one of numerous reactions. https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/apcutf/all_those_lies_told_about_zak_sabbath_zak_smith/
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Welp. Looks like Zak S is finally done. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:Innocent until proven guilty and all that. what does proof look like to you
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
How exactly would you prove someone guilty of an emotionally abusive relationship and/or sexual harassment and/or an assault that happened years ago? Why people are so eager to defend a dangerous lunatic who wrote one or two pretty good books is beyond me. I get that his co-authors are some combination of greedy and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:How exactly would you prove someone guilty of an emotionally abusive relationship and/or sexual harassment and/or an assault that happened years ago? And all of them are running away from him as fast as possible now. He has Raggi and Mearls left and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Also this is not a court of law, so innocent until proven guilty is not a standard that has to apply. (Next someone will chime up with "Well I guess I'm just better at separating art from the artist" )
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Arivia posted:And all of them are running away from him as fast as possible now. He has Raggi and Mearls left and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
this is a no politics zone, so we should keep the standards of the political institution that is america's judicial system out of the thread. Instead, we should evaluate the case on its own merits, which is that zak s has been credibly accused of harassment and assault for years, and people close to zak are now full-throatedly confirming those accusations and are in fact levelling their own. If we do not take the political stance of "we can't just trust what several women have said", which is designed to make it easier for men to get away with intimate partner assault and harassment, it is very easy to see how he is obviously guilty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:Also this is not a court of law, so innocent until proven guilty is not a standard that has to apply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Hey Xotl, this is a loving callout. Now can we denounce the lovely pieces of OSR and make defending them socially unacceptable? That goes way beyond Zak S, but if him being exposed again is what it takes to make it possible to have a slightly-less-lovely OSR space online, that's a loving start.gradenko_2000 posted:if we are going to close off discussion on "OSR Politics", which is perhaps understandable for being non-germane to the thread, it would behoove us to actually acknowledge that these people exist and are shitcocks, rather than contributing to the Missing Stair problem. Xotl posted:No, I don't think it would behoove us, because there's other places that could be and are used to talk about OSR drama, and it's naive to think that we would be able to talk about it without things spiralling further down the well. If politics are important enough to you that you have to vet your elfgames for ideological propriety, I can respect that even if I don't understand it, but it's on you to do the checking and you can and should do it on your own. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
I never had any problem with calling pieces of poo poo pieces of poo poo. Everybody on this forum already knew Zak (and Pundit, and Satanis, and whoever) to be terrible and freely discussed that. I assumed that the ban was an agreed-upon attitude, since I copied it verbatim over from the other thread, and we also already have two threads in this very subforum where that discussion happens (and is happening right now): I figured that was plenty. If people really think it's so important that we cover the topic here as well, I'll remove the request from the OP. Xotl fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Yes. And it should have been all along.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
There is OSR stuff being made by non-lovely people, and nothing the lovely people made is so good that it's irreplaceable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Alhireth-Hotep posted:Hey Xotl, this is a loving callout. Now can we denounce the lovely pieces of OSR and make defending them socially unacceptable? That goes way beyond Zak S, but if him being exposed again is what it takes to make it possible to have a slightly-less-lovely OSR space online, that's a loving start. You quoted the exact Xotl post that caused me to stop posting in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
All right, I'll axe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Yeah, not particularly into this topic since the late days of the old thread when it seemed to be going in a certain unfortunate direction. I posted a bit though, now that I look at it so I suppose I forgot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:There is OSR stuff being made by non-lovely people, and nothing the lovely people made is so good that it's irreplaceable. That's true of most things, thankfully, but OSR and oldschool stuff has so goddamn MUCH stuff to pick and choose from there's literally no reason to use stuff made by lovely people. Even ignoring OSR and new wave poo poo, just the oldschool content alone made pre-2000 has mountains and mountains of content to use, take inspiration from, or otherwise sculpt to your tastes. Part of why I like playing old systems so much is the sheer depth of content to choose from, and the decades of discussion and tweaking that have gone on since it's first publication.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:There is OSR stuff being made by non-lovely people, and nothing the lovely people made is so good that it's irreplaceable. How about instead of a ban on denouncing lovely people, we ban discussing the work of lovely people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:How about instead of a ban on denouncing lovely people, we ban discussing the work of lovely people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Xotl posted:I never had any problem with calling pieces of poo poo pieces of poo poo. Everybody on this forum already knew Zak (and Pundit, and Satanis, and whoever) to be terrible and freely discussed that. I assumed that the ban was an agreed-upon attitude, since I copied it verbatim over from the other thread, and we also already have two threads in this very subforum where that discussion happens (and is happening right now): I figured that was plenty. Nice edit, glad you're being slightly less of an rear end in a top hat than your initial reaction, but gradenko_2000 posted:it would behoove us to actually acknowledge that these people exist and are shitcocks Xotl posted:No, I don't think it would behoove us, Xotl posted:I never had any problem with calling pieces of poo poo pieces of poo poo. Bullshit. Xotl posted:I assumed that the ban was an agreed-upon attitude
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
The OP had links to the two chat threads in this forum where the sort of discussion desired already occurs, which is more than the old OP had. Yes, some people complained when this thread opened right from the start that they didn't agree, but since people in general seemed to have no problem with the exact same stipulation in the old thread, I saw them as exceptions. By now it's pretty clear that attitudes have changed since the old thread and they're no longer the exception, so I've changed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
I'm real sorry for everything I've had to do with him and this website. It was always obvious he was a huge rear end in a top hat, but some of my favorite people are huge assholes, and a lot of his work in RPGs felt legit groundbreaking. When things got worse I thought that maybe if I stayed on somewhat friendly terms with him I could get him to just chill the gently caress out a little--that maybe if he could just learn to let criticism stand he'd be okay. Opposition certainly only ever seemed to make the amount of bad poo poo he'd get up to increase. That fantasy has been pretty thoroughly debunked, though, even before Mandy's post. He's drifted further and further away from a "If I perceive you as wronging me I'm willing to do extremely ugly things to defend myself" pattern towards a more "people who like storygames are actively harmful and I have no more interest in compromise with them than I am with the modern Republican party"-style bizarre rpg-culture warrior (that Republican analogy coming directly from my last interaction with him). And now, in light of Mandy's post, gently caress him and everything he's touched. Ban discussing his work from the thread. Put a warning about him in the OP. If you see a FLGS carrying his stuff warn them about him. I'm done. Again, I'm sorry everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Serf posted:what does proof look like to you To be completely clear about this, I'm neither condemning nor defending Zak, or the practice of beating your SO and being an insufferable egotist. But gently caress if I'm joining a lynch mob on the strength of two links to social media - none of which contain the name of the accuser(s). When the dude's arraigned - that's when I'll bring my pitchfork to the town meeting. Until then, let's talk elf games. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:I don't care about proof per se. If the guy's a rapist, his victims will hopefully seek legal redress. That's where proof will come in handy. Are you being wilfully ignorant? The accuser identifies herself in the first dang link.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
There's a lot more than two links out there, friend. The only person who will actually hang this fucker is himself. Hopefully soon, if he hasn't already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:I don't care about proof per se. If the guy's a rapist, his victims will hopefully seek legal redress. That's where proof will come in handy. As mentioned above, they do contain the name. Second, gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
I'm really glad I got out of the OSR game when I did and I'm hesitating getting back into it. Every time I think about FG&G I embarrassingly remember my note on exclusively using masculine pronouns because 2E does the same thing and I can't help but cringe at myself. Sometimes I wonder where I would be today if I continued because I was offered to collaborate and sell my rights to some people who haven't been very tasteful the past couple years. Seriously, if I ever go back to FG&G my first task is to replace all pronouns with "the player" or "the GM." In some of the drafts I went with singular "they" but you would not believe how many people were like "ew, bad grammar!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Which is weird, because singular they has a long (albeit checkered) history. But yes, it's often a fairly easy way to recognize a particular stream of "hearkening back to a time that never was" conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:I don't care about proof per se. If the guy's a rapist, his victims will hopefully seek legal redress. That's where proof will come in handy. gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:I don't care about proof per se. If the guy's a rapist, his victims will hopefully seek legal redress. That's where proof will come in handy. Slam your fuckin dick in a car door with this bullshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:I'm neither condemning nor defending Zak, or the practice of beating your SO I cannot loving believe that you typed these words and hit post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
I'm not going to condemn domestic violence,
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
What Zak did was whack. But
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:I don't care about proof per se. If the guy's a rapist, his victims will hopefully seek legal redress. That's where proof will come in handy. There are three names in that post, the first and primary being Mandy Morbid, Zak's long-term partner who moved to another country to escape him, and who now affirms that every allegation about Zak being an abusive, manipulative rear end in a top hat who saw her more as a shield, trophy, and convenient mask to dress up in while she was seriously ill. The other two are former female friends of Zak and Mandy's who also support everything Mandy brings forward. What exactly are you loving reading, and what position do you think gives you the right to call "a long-overdue movement to push the Max-Landis-of-tabeltop-gaming into the dark corner he belongs in" a "lynch mob"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
VacuumJockey posted:none of which contain the name of the accuser(s). I was going to post a big thing about how innocent until proven guilty is part of placing the burden of proof on the state before it uses its vast power to punish potential crimes and how that differs significantly from the decisions we make in our day to day lives, but given that you saw two Facebook posts and couldn't figure out who posted them despite the names being right there at the top I realised you're dumb as a bag of loving rocks and that would be a huge waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 08:41
|
|
|
Saguaro PI posted:I was going to post a big thing about how innocent until proven guilty is part of placing the burden of proof on the state before it uses its vast power to punish potential crimes and how that differs significantly from the decisions we make in our day to day lives You should do this anyway. There needs to be a well-written and convenient copy/paste-able blurb about this floating around for likely future needs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
Being Eastern European I am not as, cough, as socially progressive as your average SA poster, but I feel this poo poo is not terribly hard. Someone gets accused of something: if it's one person and no documented proof, well, that's a shame but wait and see, maybe they're just getting Aziz'd; if it's three people that someone was in a close intimate relationship with, all making a statement someone's a sociopath abuser, well, it's not exactly a great look for that person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:You should do this anyway. There needs to be a well-written and convenient copy/paste-able blurb about this floating around for likely future needs. I'm definitely not going to promise this will be well-written, and also I'm not a lawyer or legal type person but: This isn't really hard. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle underlying how court systems work because if the State decides someone is a criminal they can do some Serious poo poo to them up to and including seizing large amounts of their property, imprisoning them and just straight-up killing them. It's also important to consider that as a necessary part of this and also the whole "reasonable doubt" thing that a court declaring someone "not guilty" isn't the same thing as "we don't think you did this" it's "we can't prove you did this and thus must treat you as if you were innocent". The thing is nobody consistently applies this to their individual, day-to-day lives. Put aside the fact that the consequences of an individual deciding someone is guilty of something are far, far less than that of the State. Imagine being that person. Imagine if your friend goes "some rear end in a top hat almost slammed into me running a red light" and then instead of going "wow, yeah, what an rear end in a top hat" you go "hmmm, think I need to see some proof before I pass judgement". You might respond "well this is a bit more serious than that, we're talking accusations against a known individual of domestic or sexual violence", but that's a lovely way of approaching things. What kind of proof, exactly, is it going to take before you believe the accuser and how likely is it to be available? Unless somebody was recording things at the time, how do you definitively prove somebody was screaming threats or belittling their partner? How do you prove somebody did not in fact consent to a sexual act? At the end of the day you might believe that the burden of proof for the real serious poo poo is higher than the jackass cutting your friend off in traffic, but at the end of the day what you'll have to go on in both cases the only evidence you'll receive for both is the same, a testimonial. And it'll be up to you to use your judgement to figure out if somebody is telling the truth or if they're lying. You might think by refusing to condemn or defend you're exercising some kind of higher ethical principle, but mostly you're just engaging in a cowardly abdication of the need to exercise reason and judgement that you engage in every day. Oh, also in social situations, deciding someone is innocent until proven guilty is exactly the same as calling the accuser a liar. So don't do that "I refuse to condemn or defend" poo poo. Either the people saying "x person is an abuser" is telling the truth or they aren't. Again, you're just engaging in a more cowardly form of calling them a liar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Saguaro PI posted:Oh, also in social situations, deciding someone is innocent until proven guilty is exactly the same as calling the accuser a liar. So don't do that "I refuse to condemn or defend" poo poo. Either the people saying "x person is an abuser" is telling the truth or they aren't. Again, you're just engaging in a more cowardly form of calling them a liar. Uh, not really? The world isn't that black and white. Someone can makes accusations, and be in the wrong about it, while being sincere about it. Again, for example, the Aziz Ansari scandal. I have no doubt the lady in question was sincere in her feelings of feeling violated, but at the same time, the general public consensus (which I am sure someone here disagrees with and that's okay) seems to have settled on 'sorry you had a negative experience, but, based on what you describe, mmaybe he's not a rapist abuser and publishing this was ill-advised'. It's hard. I guess, just try to be generous in your judgements to everyone involved and weigh each case on its own terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 11:56
|
|