In this video, I claim that Zak Smith called himself 'the dragon guarding the valley.' I recalled the episode incorrectly, and have confirmed that it was someone else that had said that about him. I apologize to Zak, and all of you, for this error.
True Kingship. A magnificent, honest, level take on the whole kerfuffle. Without compromise, without bullshit, without equivocation. You were an absolute real ass dude when we met at Cauldron, and you are real ass dude now. Hear hear!
The audio clips are a testament to Weisman's skill. As Errol Morris said of interviews, "if you shut up, let people talk, within three minutes they will show you how crazy they really are."
Thank you, James. This whole thing needed some context and a platform for that context. You are a brave and principled person. We exchanged some spicy words long ago when you were developing LotFP and my take away even then is that you are forthright. Thank you for standing up for yourself and those people that stand beside you.
My two cents about it... Cent 1. Zak had written and said a lot about how he doesn't want gatekeepers in the hobby - the people who say "Strippers playing D&D is bad for women", "Kingdom Death is badwrongfun", "LotFP books must have trigger warnings" etc etc. I don't think calling someone who wants to keep gatekeepers out a gatekeeper is the right term. And, from what I understand from the article, it's not that "no one had a reason to dislike Zak" - no one had a valid reason to coordinate a smear campaign against Zak. It wasn't a matter of life and death to anyone. You got to have a really important reason to justify something like that, and no one had such a justification. Cent 2. The problem is, people who make games can also ruin lives - again, what the article is about. Which puts people in a position where buying or recommending a game has more meaning than just gaming. It becomes "here, take my dollar, buy a bullet, and shoot me in the leg". There are enough ettins, fionas, skogens and hills in the world to make life complete hell for a lot of people unless someone takes some action to prevent it. Does it suck? It certainly does. But that's how things are. I agree that the author should've talked to Koebel and Crane, for the same reason she talked to Hill and Skogen - they were there, they were part of the campaign. I don't know if she reached out to them. And I agree she should've reached out to you, for the same reason she talked to Jeff Rients - you witnessed it and you were affected by it.
@@zaksabbath4360 I'm not saying that reaching out to Crane or Raggi or the others would result in an interview. I don't know if Dr Weisman tried to make contact with any of them. Just saying that if you're writing an article about lying and harassment, and interviewing the harassers, it makes sense to put Koebel on the list.
I have mixed feelings about this... Bullying people is not acceptable. I don't like bullies and don't want to support them while they continue to engage in bullying. I don't need them to repent, or apologize, but I do need them to stop. Have they stopped yet?
No but all of their cronies and cancel pigs are dismissing the article, its doctored, out of context etc,,, They have no integrity and won't own what they did. Reddit is even blocking it on certain forums, they are trying to pretend it never happened. People like this are the reason I left the cesspool of Twitter for a long time. Nobody would talk about a gaming product just about the author and how you should not support them because of x,y, and Z. It got tiring real quick.
@@Ampolitor I hadn't heard of any claims to it being doctored or out of context... but neither did I really expect that any of these people would see the error of their ways.
27:00 something should happen: these people should from now on have everything they say and have said about others viewed with skepticism, as we should with everyone we don’t know personally. The entire reason these witch hunts work is because of people’s willingness to believe strangers just because what they’re saying is emotionally charged.
I don't know half of who these shitheads are, but I'm gonna play my elfgames and buy LotFP books (when I remortgage my house to afford the next one lol). I'll play what I want and buy what I want. Tongue in cheek question though: when's Zak's next LotFP book out? Keep it up you magnificent bastard you.
I don't think the realm of "bad taste" remotely encompasses the skeezy shit that Koebel pulled, but I'm also sure you understand that his image as a holier than thou self-righteous safety-tool-thumping male feminist ally tenderqueer softboy made his complete failure to respect a reasonable boundary eight hundred times more galling to take.
@@PostmortemVideowell this is the perhaps the greatest single CASE for the failing of safety tools, because clearly the fact that she didn't x-card indicates that the presence of safety tools doesn't actually address the issue either of players that aren't comfortable enough with the basic social action of setting a boundary or of GMs that can't read the room and decide to go there anyway.
Through all of this, you Sir are an inspirational, successful independent artist in your craft. DO well, Be well, Live well and may better days be ahead. Namaste
James’s commentary always seems sincere and heartfelt. He is painfully self aware and self reflective. I think his instinct to second guess himself is leading him to make a straw-man criticism of the article in question in this case. “You couldn’t find one person with an identifiable and maybe even sympathetic reason to not like Zack?” James asks. As I read it, everyone quoted in the article seems to have an identifiable and even sympathetic reason to not like Zack. He is described as abrasive and generally ungracious towards people he disagrees with. The thesis of the article isn’t that the subjects weren’t justified in disliking Zack, just that his arguably unpleasant nature doesn’t justify making stuff up about him to bring everyone else around to the same point of view.
If you can think of a pleasant way to say "stop lying" nobody has yet found it yet. You can be polite (and evasive) about it and everyone misses the point or be clear about it and be told you're rude. The second thing is the only good or useful thing.
@@zaksabbath4360 The merits of being polite vs. being principled can be argued, and reasonable minds can come to different conclusions. I don't know that you are an unpleasant person, Zak, I just see that your supporters seem to concede that you can be. People that meet you don't really need a reason to dislike you (or me) that they need to justify. My point was that I think James, in an attempt to overcorrect for his own acknowledged bias, is attacking a straw-man. For the purpose of evaluating the conduct of the interviewees, your likability is a red-herring. To your point, you can be polite when you ask people to "stop lying". It just takes longer and requires more effort. An example employed every day is the Reid Techniques of Investigative Interviewing, which is about changing a subject's minds to get them to take responsibility for their actions by offering psychological amnesty. The problem with the Reid method is that proponents think it is the gold standard for getting at the the truth, and it is not. It is very effective at getting confessions, including false ones. But it has occurred to me that would-be advocates for social justice could learn something from the Reid method if they really want to change the minds of the "problematic people" instead of just shaming them into silence. That is not to imply you bear some responsibility for what happened to you because you chose to be curt with people believed to have a strained relationship with the truth. You didn't owe them the time and effort it would have taken to change their minds.
@@taryntessrog7588 That's not accurate at all. The Reid method doesn't work on the internet when the person being talked to can just leave or block you at any time
@@taryntessrog7588 "Are you sure about that?" "How did you come to that conclusion?" "Did you experience this yourself?" As opposed to the "Bullshit" scene from The Return of Captain Invincible.
@@zaksabbath4360 Ah, I didn't realize we were talking exclusively about the internet. Feels like you're moving the goalpost. I'll concede that I don't spend a lot of time engaged in in discourse on the internet, so I don't have a good frame of reference; but I wouldn't take it for granted that you are right about that. People can and do shut down or walk out of an interview when you botch it, and the stakes incentivizing them to do so are usually much higher. My own anecdotal experience is that someone is even more likely disengage with you (whether that means walking out of the room or blocking you) when you are curt with them, online or off, so the opportunity cost is in not being polite. Assuming your goal is to change their mind, which maybe it is not. If you are just shutting someone down to discredit them with onlookers and prevent the spread of misinformation, maybe you don't care about changing their mind. But in that case, haven't you achieved your purpose when they leave the conversation? But I just cited the Reid method in response to your broad assertion that no one has ever come up with a polite way of asking someone else to stop lying, because it is a formalized toolbox of techniques with a name that I can point to and you can google. Here are a couple of specific strategies that work for me to obtain cooperation from skeptical people that I think would work on the internet. First, before criticizing someone's opinion, restate what they said in the most articulate and defensible way you can. Improve on their argument if you can. Demonstrate that you have actually listened to them and aren't dismissing their point of view reflexively. Then, make sure they agree you have their perspective right before explaining your own and why it contradicts theirs. A weird, but surprisingly effective technique is to catch yourself every time you are about to say the word "but" and say "and" instead. Instead of "I understand that you think LotFP should be driven out of business because Raggi is an immoral publisher, but all of the reasons you have given are based on assumptions that aren't true," say, "I understand that you think LotFP should be driven out of business because Raggi is an immoral publisher, and all of the reasons you have given are based on assumptions that aren't true." It may sound absurd, but it's almost like a magic trick. It is also a lot harder to do in real time than it sounds. It should be easier to practice in written correspondence. And I'm not saying it is on you to practice any of that, Zak. It is work to change someone's mind. And it is harder for some people than others. And it is often wasted effort even when your are good at it. But there are ways to be polite, professional even, when you correct deceptive behavior that people have found and practiced. I might very well be wrong about that in internet communities, but I think you are taking on the the burden of proof when you make a claim as broad as, "If you can think of a pleasant way to say 'stop lying' nobody has yet found it yet." Perhaps you meant, "I tried being polite, and it wasn't effective against the amount of misinformation I was dealing with"? That would be totally legit.
i liked the article to begin with but it did turn into a pathetic zak love story, and ofc it looks alot like his doing, its also way to convenient timing, that it came out right now when mothership is launching ;) fiona hit piece ? i believe so
As ever, that was a very lofty read of the issue. I don’t understand the urge to reach for any kind of justification for the Internet Manson family either. There’s nothing reasonable about what they did - regardless of how they felt - which was hurt people. I also know Zak and have been inarguments with him and he is not aggressive or conflict seeking or a policeman. Sure, nobody likes admitting when they’re wrong. That is a grade school issue. People writing a treatise every week about how hard it is for them to admit when you’re wrong is also not admitting you were wrong or helping. It keeps the level of the discussion at that same Harry Potter fantasy level.
Look at Zak's comment above. I'll quote, "You're assuming irrationally that everyone would've agreed to talk to them.". The sentence is correct, but it works perfectly without the word "irrationally". By including the word "irrationally" he makes it easy for a reader to take the statement as a personal attack. If this came from Mr Spock people would roll with it knowing he's strictly being factual and logical but Zak doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that way. Right or wrong that that sort of thing gives people a feeling of unnecessary aggression and conflict even if it isn't intended or even there.
@@ruprecht8520 this has already been exhaustively explained by the article the video is about - please read it. You’re objecting to tone - on the internet. Its one thing for me to be physically stuck in a room with someone whos talking to me like I’m soo hopeless. When you’re dealing with statements made by near perfect strangers in forums where theoretically any person alive could one day pass and take it for the truth, immediacy and accuracy and concision are just communicating respectfully. Irrational was the respectful word - it wasn’t insulting - all it did was quickly give that person the information they needed to clarify what they meant. They did and it’s fine.
@@jehm_ I'm just explaining why pretty much nobody defended Zak. Tone is a pathetic reason to try to ruin someone but it does turn folks indifferent to your plight.
@@ruprecht8520 ok - well - one - I don’t know anything about most people but I know it’s not true almost nobody supported Zak - plenty of people did they were just real about it so it wasn’t all heartfelt tweets of support - two - I never asked for that to be explained and I explicitly said in my primary comment that it is pointless to explain and exacerbates the problem.
Creators against this nonsense need to be united. Despite whatever has gone on accusing, and organising witchhunts will always suck. Gamers are passionate people but fueding? Ridiculous.
In general, I agree with most of this take, having been, just like you, one of these angry goblins crawling in this shit cistern for quite some time. I am still deeply suspicious of every aspect of the article stemming from its severe preoccupation with the frankly impossible task of rehabilitating Zak's reputation. For what it's worth, while I absolutely believe that everyone the article said lied about Zak lied about Zak, as far as the abuse allegations go, I think their lies happened to mirror the truth, and having thoroughly read the entirety of Mandy's account and all the supporting testimony from both sides several years ago, I still believe Mandy and not Zak. But yes, these people are toxic, and the spaces they cultivate are nightmare abysses of backbiting in which a circular firing squad gleefully cycles through an infinite stock of ammo.
"The scope of the investigation could have been larger" is an easy ass criticism for someone not actually doing the legwork. And I reject the idea that the article is a hagiography of Zak simply because it wasn't a complete biography. Specific claims were investigated and reported on. In my opinion you're making the same mistake that a lot of people are: you are assuming, perhaps unconsciously, that the author is an insider to the scene. There's no reason to assume that the first investigator of a field is going to be able to completely map out the territory.
Fascists always hide behind the distinction between pleasantness and political power. Can’t we all just get along? Can’t we all just compromise? (While I’m crushing you.)
Absolutely not, that's ridiculous! After that incident, I've been trying to include as many surprise, non-consensual robot orgasms in my games as possible. *CHA'ALT*
It wasn't sexual harassment, it was inclusion of a sexy element in the game, in which safety tools were used, but nobody spoke up or complained until audience reactions seemed to nudge them into doing so. There was plenty of opportunity for players to object, change, fade to black etc. This is why safety tools are pointless crap, they don't even work.
@@PostmortemVideoThis is exactly what I was going to say. Safety tools are shit, and even the virtue signalers refuse to use them and then act like they don't exist so they can be victims. Keobel got the short end of the stick on that one and just proves the left will eat their own if given the opportunity.
You should really avoid driving or operating heavy machinery until the psychosis fades. You just made a statement that requires James "Grim Jim" Desborough would _shave his beard_. These are not the words of someone close enough to reality to steal reality's wifi.
And you actually believe that hustle of feigning regret wouldn't incite curiosity and more publicity? @@TheBardSM What part of "schtick" trick do you not understand?
Nope, that's how the math always comes out... unless you're talking about a community of less than a thousand. Lol, even our small gaming community got absolutely wrecked by left-wing politics!
It's true, Jim doesn't understand communism, but it's weird this comes from someone with two neo nazi flags as their avatar. Jim said once Mein Kampf and Das Kapital were both the same, hateful books about murdering people.
@@VengerSatanisOutrage culture and american twitter warriors have absolutely NOTHING to do with leftist politics, socialism, or communism. If you want real socialism then you have to go south of the border. If you want communists you have to travel south or east. American liberals who put communist flags in their twitter profile are not communists. They're not even present offline.
In this video, I claim that Zak Smith called himself 'the dragon guarding the valley.' I recalled the episode incorrectly, and have confirmed that it was someone else that had said that about him. I apologize to Zak, and all of you, for this error.
Screen recordings of the interview audio original SoundCloud embeds are on my channel.
corrected/updated
True Kingship. A magnificent, honest, level take on the whole kerfuffle. Without compromise, without bullshit, without equivocation. You were an absolute real ass dude when we met at Cauldron, and you are real ass dude now. Hear hear!
The audio clips are a testament to Weisman's skill. As Errol Morris said of interviews, "if you shut up, let people talk, within three minutes they will show you how crazy they really are."
The clarity with which you approached, dissected and re-presented the article is nothing short of astonishing. Very impressive, well done.
If by dissected you mean missed the fucking point of it then yea he did a great job
Then enlighten us ... why not tell us what YOU think the point of the article was then?
@@TerryDM1970 When people lie and there are no consequences, they keep lying.
@@zaksabbath4360 ... yes Zak, I and many other people fully understand that to be true ... but I was asking for the opinion of the other guy.
Thank you, James. This whole thing needed some context and a platform for that context. You are a brave and principled person. We exchanged some spicy words long ago when you were developing LotFP and my take away even then is that you are forthright.
Thank you for standing up for yourself and those people that stand beside you.
I find your views very entertaining and well thought out. I look forward to watching your broadcasts. Thank you for sharing your opinions.
You're genuinly getting really good on camera.
A masterclass in how to be better than those who’ve wronged you.
"The best revenge is to be unlike the one who performed the injustice." --Marcus Aurelius
My two cents about it...
Cent 1. Zak had written and said a lot about how he doesn't want gatekeepers in the hobby - the people who say "Strippers playing D&D is bad for women", "Kingdom Death is badwrongfun", "LotFP books must have trigger warnings" etc etc. I don't think calling someone who wants to keep gatekeepers out a gatekeeper is the right term.
And, from what I understand from the article, it's not that "no one had a reason to dislike Zak" - no one had a valid reason to coordinate a smear campaign against Zak. It wasn't a matter of life and death to anyone. You got to have a really important reason to justify something like that, and no one had such a justification.
Cent 2. The problem is, people who make games can also ruin lives - again, what the article is about. Which puts people in a position where buying or recommending a game has more meaning than just gaming. It becomes "here, take my dollar, buy a bullet, and shoot me in the leg". There are enough ettins, fionas, skogens and hills in the world to make life complete hell for a lot of people unless someone takes some action to prevent it. Does it suck? It certainly does. But that's how things are.
I agree that the author should've talked to Koebel and Crane, for the same reason she talked to Hill and Skogen - they were there, they were part of the campaign. I don't know if she reached out to them. And I agree she should've reached out to you, for the same reason she talked to Jeff Rients - you witnessed it and you were affected by it.
You're assuming irrationally that everyone would've agreed to talk to them.
That's very much what I got out of it as well. Not sure how Ragi missed all that (or why he'd choose to miss it)
@@zaksabbath4360 I'm not saying that reaching out to Crane or Raggi or the others would result in an interview. I don't know if Dr Weisman tried to make contact with any of them. Just saying that if you're writing an article about lying and harassment, and interviewing the harassers, it makes sense to put Koebel on the list.
I have mixed feelings about this... Bullying people is not acceptable. I don't like bullies and don't want to support them while they continue to engage in bullying. I don't need them to repent, or apologize, but I do need them to stop. Have they stopped yet?
They only stop if they experience consequences
No but all of their cronies and cancel pigs
are dismissing the article, its doctored, out of context etc,,, They have no integrity and won't own what they did. Reddit is even blocking it on certain forums, they are trying to pretend it never happened. People like this are the reason I left the cesspool of Twitter for a long time. Nobody would talk about a gaming product just about the author and how you should not support them because of x,y, and Z. It got tiring real quick.
@@Ampolitor I hadn't heard of any claims to it being doctored or out of context... but neither did I really expect that any of these people would see the error of their ways.
They will never stop until they suffer consequences.
I wish I could upvote this much more than once.
you kind of can, by distributing it among people you know that would be interested enough in this topic...
27:00 something should happen: these people should from now on have everything they say and have said about others viewed with skepticism, as we should with everyone we don’t know personally. The entire reason these witch hunts work is because of people’s willingness to believe strangers just because what they’re saying is emotionally charged.
Just buy stuff from independent creators who stand up against the B.S.
Oh, absolutely.
There is a saying that's been around in many forms since the days of papyrus and scrolls: "Don't believe everything you read"
Bravo...truth and honor.
Do what thou wilt, live deliciously and mind your own business should be how folks roll.
The best Hamlet soliloquy I've ever seen
Well spoken.
I don't know half of who these shitheads are, but I'm gonna play my elfgames and buy LotFP books (when I remortgage my house to afford the next one lol). I'll play what I want and buy what I want.
Tongue in cheek question though: when's Zak's next LotFP book out?
Keep it up you magnificent bastard you.
Piikahaka? It is a park in Finland. In Rahola district, Tampere. 😳
I don't think the realm of "bad taste" remotely encompasses the skeezy shit that Koebel pulled, but I'm also sure you understand that his image as a holier than thou self-righteous safety-tool-thumping male feminist ally tenderqueer softboy made his complete failure to respect a reasonable boundary eight hundred times more galling to take.
They were using safety tools, nobody invoked them. No boundary was asserted or set.
@@PostmortemVideowell this is the perhaps the greatest single CASE for the failing of safety tools, because clearly the fact that she didn't x-card indicates that the presence of safety tools doesn't actually address the issue either of players that aren't comfortable enough with the basic social action of setting a boundary or of GMs that can't read the room and decide to go there anyway.
"I hate people!" ME TOO! You do know that you're not acting accordingly to their narrative! ANYWAY, amazing commentary.
Through all of this, you Sir are an inspirational, successful independent artist in your craft. DO well, Be well, Live well and may better days be ahead. Namaste
And still you refuse to name it.
James’s commentary always seems sincere and heartfelt. He is painfully self aware and self reflective. I think his instinct to second guess himself is leading him to make a straw-man criticism of the article in question in this case.
“You couldn’t find one person with an identifiable and maybe even sympathetic reason to not like Zack?” James asks.
As I read it, everyone quoted in the article seems to have an identifiable and even sympathetic reason to not like Zack. He is described as abrasive and generally ungracious towards people he disagrees with. The thesis of the article isn’t that the subjects weren’t justified in disliking Zack, just that his arguably unpleasant nature doesn’t justify making stuff up about him to bring everyone else around to the same point of view.
If you can think of a pleasant way to say "stop lying" nobody has yet found it yet. You can be polite (and evasive) about it and everyone misses the point or be clear about it and be told you're rude. The second thing is the only good or useful thing.
@@zaksabbath4360 The merits of being polite vs. being principled can be argued, and reasonable minds can come to different conclusions. I don't know that you are an unpleasant person, Zak, I just see that your supporters seem to concede that you can be. People that meet you don't really need a reason to dislike you (or me) that they need to justify. My point was that I think James, in an attempt to overcorrect for his own acknowledged bias, is attacking a straw-man. For the purpose of evaluating the conduct of the interviewees, your likability is a red-herring.
To your point, you can be polite when you ask people to "stop lying". It just takes longer and requires more effort. An example employed every day is the Reid Techniques of Investigative Interviewing, which is about changing a subject's minds to get them to take responsibility for their actions by offering psychological amnesty. The problem with the Reid method is that proponents think it is the gold standard for getting at the the truth, and it is not. It is very effective at getting confessions, including false ones. But it has occurred to me that would-be advocates for social justice could learn something from the Reid method if they really want to change the minds of the "problematic people" instead of just shaming them into silence.
That is not to imply you bear some responsibility for what happened to you because you chose to be curt with people believed to have a strained relationship with the truth. You didn't owe them the time and effort it would have taken to change their minds.
@@taryntessrog7588 That's not accurate at all. The Reid method doesn't work on the internet when the person being talked to can just leave or block you at any time
@@taryntessrog7588 "Are you sure about that?" "How did you come to that conclusion?" "Did you experience this yourself?" As opposed to the "Bullshit" scene from The Return of Captain Invincible.
@@zaksabbath4360 Ah, I didn't realize we were talking exclusively about the internet. Feels like you're moving the goalpost. I'll concede that I don't spend a lot of time engaged in in discourse on the internet, so I don't have a good frame of reference; but I wouldn't take it for granted that you are right about that. People can and do shut down or walk out of an interview when you botch it, and the stakes incentivizing them to do so are usually much higher. My own anecdotal experience is that someone is even more likely disengage with you (whether that means walking out of the room or blocking you) when you are curt with them, online or off, so the opportunity cost is in not being polite. Assuming your goal is to change their mind, which maybe it is not. If you are just shutting someone down to discredit them with onlookers and prevent the spread of misinformation, maybe you don't care about changing their mind. But in that case, haven't you achieved your purpose when they leave the conversation?
But I just cited the Reid method in response to your broad assertion that no one has ever come up with a polite way of asking someone else to stop lying, because it is a formalized toolbox of techniques with a name that I can point to and you can google. Here are a couple of specific strategies that work for me to obtain cooperation from skeptical people that I think would work on the internet. First, before criticizing someone's opinion, restate what they said in the most articulate and defensible way you can. Improve on their argument if you can. Demonstrate that you have actually listened to them and aren't dismissing their point of view reflexively. Then, make sure they agree you have their perspective right before explaining your own and why it contradicts theirs.
A weird, but surprisingly effective technique is to catch yourself every time you are about to say the word "but" and say "and" instead. Instead of "I understand that you think LotFP should be driven out of business because Raggi is an immoral publisher, but all of the reasons you have given are based on assumptions that aren't true," say, "I understand that you think LotFP should be driven out of business because Raggi is an immoral publisher, and all of the reasons you have given are based on assumptions that aren't true." It may sound absurd, but it's almost like a magic trick. It is also a lot harder to do in real time than it sounds. It should be easier to practice in written correspondence.
And I'm not saying it is on you to practice any of that, Zak. It is work to change someone's mind. And it is harder for some people than others. And it is often wasted effort even when your are good at it. But there are ways to be polite, professional even, when you correct deceptive behavior that people have found and practiced.
I might very well be wrong about that in internet communities, but I think you are taking on the the burden of proof when you make a claim as broad as, "If you can think of a pleasant way to say 'stop lying' nobody has yet found it yet." Perhaps you meant, "I tried being polite, and it wasn't effective against the amount of misinformation I was dealing with"? That would be totally legit.
i liked the article to begin with but it did turn into a pathetic zak love story, and ofc it looks alot like his doing, its also way to convenient timing, that it came out right now when mothership is launching ;) fiona hit piece ? i believe so
Fiona said what she said. It's on tape.
What the smurf are you talking about? These people admit that they lied and harassed a creator just because he wanted them to stop lying.
Brilliantly said my friend
Stay the course Brother. Never bow to the people who hate you. I am going to go buy some LotFP stuff right now.
"A Game for Assholes" title of your next book?
As ever, that was a very lofty read of the issue. I don’t understand the urge to reach for any kind of justification for the Internet Manson family either. There’s nothing reasonable about what they did - regardless of how they felt - which was hurt people. I also know Zak and have been inarguments with him and he is not aggressive or conflict seeking or a policeman. Sure, nobody likes admitting when they’re wrong. That is a grade school issue. People writing a treatise every week about how hard it is for them to admit when you’re wrong is also not admitting you were wrong or helping. It keeps the level of the discussion at that same Harry Potter fantasy level.
Look at Zak's comment above. I'll quote, "You're assuming irrationally that everyone would've agreed to talk to them.". The sentence is correct, but it works perfectly without the word "irrationally". By including the word "irrationally" he makes it easy for a reader to take the statement as a personal attack. If this came from Mr Spock people would roll with it knowing he's strictly being factual and logical but Zak doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that way. Right or wrong that that sort of thing gives people a feeling of unnecessary aggression and conflict even if it isn't intended or even there.
@@ruprecht8520 this has already been exhaustively explained by the article the video is about - please read it. You’re objecting to tone - on the internet. Its one thing for me to be physically stuck in a room with someone whos talking to me like I’m soo hopeless. When you’re dealing with statements made by near perfect strangers in forums where theoretically any person alive could one day pass and take it for the truth, immediacy and accuracy and concision are just communicating respectfully.
Irrational was the respectful word - it wasn’t insulting - all it did was quickly give that person the information they needed to clarify what they meant. They did and it’s fine.
@@jehm_ I'm just explaining why pretty much nobody defended Zak. Tone is a pathetic reason to try to ruin someone but it does turn folks indifferent to your plight.
@@ruprecht8520 ok - well - one - I don’t know anything about most people but I know it’s not true almost nobody supported Zak - plenty of people did they were just real about it so it wasn’t all heartfelt tweets of support - two - I never asked for that to be explained and I explicitly said in my primary comment that it is pointless to explain and exacerbates the problem.
@@jehm_ You said "and he is not aggressive or conflict seeking" I was pointing out why many see him aggressive and conflict seeking. That is all.
LoTFP rocks! That's all that matters!
Still not going to Hobby Lobby and Chik-fil-A.
Good job, man.
Creators against this nonsense need to be united.
Despite whatever has gone on accusing, and organising witchhunts will always suck.
Gamers are passionate people but fueding? Ridiculous.
Well said.
Heres hoping you carry on despite all the ....B.S !!!!!
For the communist, the thing isn't the thing, the thing is the Revolution, and truth is a counter-Revolutionary concept.
In general, I agree with most of this take, having been, just like you, one of these angry goblins crawling in this shit cistern for quite some time. I am still deeply suspicious of every aspect of the article stemming from its severe preoccupation with the frankly impossible task of rehabilitating Zak's reputation. For what it's worth, while I absolutely believe that everyone the article said lied about Zak lied about Zak, as far as the abuse allegations go, I think their lies happened to mirror the truth, and having thoroughly read the entirety of Mandy's account and all the supporting testimony from both sides several years ago, I still believe Mandy and not Zak. But yes, these people are toxic, and the spaces they cultivate are nightmare abysses of backbiting in which a circular firing squad gleefully cycles through an infinite stock of ammo.
If you believe that lie, you don't have a good reason to
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
"The scope of the investigation could have been larger" is an easy ass criticism for someone not actually doing the legwork. And I reject the idea that the article is a hagiography of Zak simply because it wasn't a complete biography. Specific claims were investigated and reported on. In my opinion you're making the same mistake that a lot of people are: you are assuming, perhaps unconsciously, that the author is an insider to the scene. There's no reason to assume that the first investigator of a field is going to be able to completely map out the territory.
It is shocking that neither I, nor Mr Raggi were talked to, and the focus on Zak has definitely limited things.
Or give a shit about giving air-time to people's thin-ass reasons for breaking the law and even their own thin moral code.
@@PostmortemVideois it possible that, since the article wasn't finished, more outreach was intended?
@@PostmortemVideo To be fair, the focus was on the harassers. Neither Raggi nor you exactly qualify.
@@sementsevelev1322 We were victims of them, like Zak was.
In fiction anything goes.
Americasplaining. 😖
Fascists always hide behind the distinction between pleasantness and political power. Can’t we all just get along? Can’t we all just compromise? (While I’m crushing you.)
This black and white, us/them thinking sounds pretty fash.
Come on - what Adam Koebel did was really creepy - and the definition of sexual harassment. In fact that video should be used as training.
Moreover: Adam Koebel did what everyone in the article did--they dogpiled the fake story.
Absolutely not, that's ridiculous! After that incident, I've been trying to include as many surprise, non-consensual robot orgasms in my games as possible. *CHA'ALT*
It wasn't sexual harassment, it was inclusion of a sexy element in the game, in which safety tools were used, but nobody spoke up or complained until audience reactions seemed to nudge them into doing so. There was plenty of opportunity for players to object, change, fade to black etc. This is why safety tools are pointless crap, they don't even work.
@@PostmortemVideoThis is exactly what I was going to say. Safety tools are shit, and even the virtue signalers refuse to use them and then act like they don't exist so they can be victims. Keobel got the short end of the stick on that one and just proves the left will eat their own if given the opportunity.
@@VengerSatanis See my reply to GrimJim below.
Clio Weisman totally looks like grim Jim without his beard. What part of this hustle shtick of this publicity stunt gimmick do people not get?
Publicity? Weissman clearly didn't want it and neither did her co author or they would have stuck their head up already.
You should really avoid driving or operating heavy machinery until the psychosis fades. You just made a statement that requires James "Grim Jim" Desborough would _shave his beard_. These are not the words of someone close enough to reality to steal reality's wifi.
And you actually believe that hustle of feigning regret wouldn't incite curiosity and more publicity? @@TheBardSM What part of "schtick" trick do you not understand?
20:15 You have zero clue what Communism and Socialism actually are.
That's entirely beside the point
That's my line, and I suspect it's applicable to you more than Jim.
Nope, that's how the math always comes out... unless you're talking about a community of less than a thousand. Lol, even our small gaming community got absolutely wrecked by left-wing politics!
It's true, Jim doesn't understand communism, but it's weird this comes from someone with two neo nazi flags as their avatar.
Jim said once Mein Kampf and Das Kapital were both the same, hateful books about murdering people.
@@VengerSatanisOutrage culture and american twitter warriors have absolutely NOTHING to do with leftist politics, socialism, or communism.
If you want real socialism then you have to go south of the border. If you want communists you have to travel south or east.
American liberals who put communist flags in their twitter profile are not communists. They're not even present offline.