Thursday, December 12, 2019

Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Peace

Stats tell me the same number of people read these entries as have for years, so I know this'll reach the people it needs to.

Recent bullshit aside, a lot of people in gamer land say I am unnecessarily mean on the internet to gamers. All these gamer conversations, long or short, follow this same basic form:

Angry: "I DIDN'T ORDER FRENCH FRIES!"
Zak: "Well here's the receipt"
Angry: "I DON'T HAVE TO DEBATE YOU" (leaves)

----
Angry (later, to the internet): "Zak is such a jerk, he said I was made of french fries!"

---

Ten years of this--since 2009.

Point is, even though I know lots of people always do think that I legitimately to this day do not know why they think that because none of them ever stick around and answer questions long enough to explain what their beef is or why they have it. I (and everyone in real life who sees these things) go around mystified about it--I have no idea what people expect me to do instead of point to the receipt, never have. And, to a one, gamers immediately change their tune in real-life (cons or vidchat) and never say the stupid things they say online, so talking to them's no help, either.

So, if you are reading this and

(1) You think I am...

(2) unnecessarily mean on the internet...

(3) and can point to one specific example

(4)-of a specific instance and

(5)-can answer all questions about why you thought it was bad

Leave a comment.

Talk as if you're talking in real life: No talking on behalf of other people ("I think people..."), no running away in the middle.

p.s. Edit: Dec 15. Some commenters aren't smart enough to understand the rules so I added numbers.
-
-
-

81 comments:

Zak Sabbath said...

Deleted Anon:

No anonymous comments, you need a persistent identity so the conversation can be tracked and make sense.

Zak Sabbath said...

Deleted Saci:

Be -specific-not vague .

Link or quote the exact thing I said that bothered you.

Also: you are not allowed to speak on behalf of other people. So only respond if YOU think my behavior was inappropriate, not if you assume some other person does for some reason.

Zak Sabbath said...

Deleted Shannon

Be -specific-not vague .

Link or quote (or, if you can't: describe at least) the exact thing I said or did that bothered you.

"Remember Paolo" (for example) doesn't tell me what I did or said that bothered you or say why. Paolo was obviously wrong and bad, you're not expressing why you think what I said was wrong.

3 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

3 (sorry, accidentally erased)

You said:

"This seems like a bad conversation. You delete everyone who disagrees with you. Am I wrong?"

1. "you delete everyone who disagrees with you"

You are 100% wrong. Deletion isn't based on disagreeing, it's based on the reasons given above (written in English, and since you wrote in English I assume you can read it)--people aren't giving responses that can lead to a useful discussion of their grievances.

If I "What number burger did you order?" and someone goes "I hate Nancy Pelosi" that isn't voicing their issue in a way that will lead to it getting addressed. It isn't the forum for that.

If people want to announce vague grievances without support there are literally thousands of forums for that. This space here is only for assertions that can be taken seriously.

Do you understand? Do you disagree? If you disagree or don't understand, say your reasons.

2. It is a good conversation in that it reveals (so far) that people who have issues with me don't have any legitimate complaints that make sense. If they did they'd be able to articulate them.

Do you disagree? If so: say why.

----

You need to answer questions asked or all of your thread will be deleted.

3 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@3

Leaving aside the fact "real people rules" is an is/ought fallacy, answering questions is actually a "real people rule".

If you're sitting at a table talking to someone and you dodge a question, everyone knows and the person can ask again and its embarrassing to the dodger.

It's only in bad faith online conversations or press conferences with oily politicians that avoiding a question is normal.

If you have a legitimate reason why people should be allowed to dodge questions you should say what it is.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Faceless Ice Djinn

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

Your response included:

-3 bald accusations unattached to any incidents

-2 specific incidents

-3 vague accusations

-1 vague reference to a vague description

-...and several pieces of advice.

Again:

PICK ONE of the specific incidents you think is evidence I am bad or did something wrong and then answer questions about it (you can even ask questions).

If that is successfully done I'd be overjoyed to move on to your other concerns, one at a time.

But tackling that whole octopus of a statement at once will not clarify anything for anyone reading.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Random Wookie

I assume you can read. If you want to post here, follow the directions.

Faceless Ice Djinn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Faceless Ice Djinn

No, that'll do for now. Thank you for writing something that can be responded to.

So, here's the problem with that:

It's only a "victim-persecution complex" (i.e. a sign of some neurotic issue) if I am -not actually- in that situation.

But I, objectively, am. Proof:

1. People flee conversations then say things that aren't true about me constantly (for example I've been called a Nazi and a Kike-Jew-Communist both. They can't both be true therefore it's objectively true that at least one of these claims is untrue.)

2. These false claims have affected my life negatively.

Therefore I am, objectively, a victim--even though I don't look or act like the stereotype of a "victim" online. I don't have a "complex"--I am addressing a genuine problem.

So, Djinn, do you contest 1, or 2 or both or do you have some other reason you believe your claim is true?

Give your answer and please don't confuse the conversation by piling on new claims unless they are required to justify the or explain that answer. We can get to your other complaints after this one.

Faceless Ice Djinn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Faceless Ice Djinn

First: don't comment on optics, we're discussing right and wrong, not pr. If you comment again on "what things look like" then you're off-topic.

As for the rest, your mistake here is

"it's obvious that they are NOT entirely false."

They are.

So, now the question to you is: Prove one of the accusations true.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Faceless Ice Djinn

You left a message but didn't answer the question, then said "goodbye".

So this has all been circular reasoning: you believe I am abusive because I won't admit to an abuse you suspect I performed because I am abusive.

That's the begging-the-question fallacy: an argument which relies on the thing you are trying to prove.

Like: Iooking at someone in a hula hoop and going "I know that's Saturn because there's a ring around it is Saturn's ring and I know it's Saturn's ring because that's Saturn."

Thank you for participating.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Spidder

If you want to talk to me about random bullshit: comment on any post _except_ this one.

The stakes here are not whether D&D bloggers like me. The people in that community have been mobilized by Mandy's harassment campaign to financially and personally hurt lots of people. Please don't insult my concern for the situation.

Slyphic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Slyphic

So that's a link to something you presumably have a problem with. What is that problem?

Slyphic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Slyphic

1. Show where the account claims to be Shannon Appelcline

2. You have irrationally assumed motive I do not argue to "not be wrong". ("Synthesis"is silly. If someone says the moon is made of green cheese you don't agree to pretend its half green cheese.) I argue to get information for me and for third parties that want information. Do you think that is a bad thing or do you not believe that. If you do not believe that, say why.

Slyphic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Slyphic

"An account named sapplecline that posts in r/rpg intrinsically claims to be that person."

1. Why? Lots of social media accounts have nicknames. Examples are trivially easy to find.

2. Also: if this were true, why does the account never post anything that is Shannon Appelcline-y? The account wrote absolutely nothing characteristic (or even parodic) of Shannon Appelcline at all.

3. Did you check the post history before assuming the account was claiming to be Shannon Appelcline?

4. Why do you not believe me?

5. In this fantasy you have: Why would I want to find people to disagree with me?

6. Yes. If I provide a link will that prove something to you? What is it supposed to prove? (I don't want to provide a link and then have you argue this time it doesn't count for some obscure reason)

7. I did not say I don't seek consensus or common ground or synthesis, I said that's not why I -argue- . Do you grasp the difference?

8. Are you claiming "synthesis" is always good?

9. What possible reason would any reasonable person have for arguing a random anonymous person that fate and timing has thrown them together with in a thread with into a "synthesis" or "common ground"? Even changing that one person's mind leaves millions untouched.

Zak Sabbath said...

(4 refers to "Why do you not believe me" re: "I do not believe you solely argue to get information."

(I also said I argue to provide information to other people--

Zak Sabbath said...

@slyphic

You have to answer every question you are asked, that's part of the terms of getting to post here. You skipped at least #2.

I know that doing things I ask is inherently awful to some people (because they just don't want to do something they've been asked to do) but if I could ask you to use the numbers it will help make it easier for 3rd parties to follow

Zak Sabbath said...

@slyphic

It was a yes/no question. I need a clear yes or no.

If you have some explanation you can include that after the yes or no.

Zak Sabbath said...

@slyphis sorry my bad, I meant this question:

"3. Did you check the post history before assuming the account was claiming to be Shannon Appelcline?"

Can you give me a clear yes or no on that?

Zak Sabbath said...

@slyphis

Ok I have an answer there, thanks.

Now:

I still need an answer on:

1 (you just asked a question instead of answering--is your answer "I can't think of any other reason"?)

4 I didn't ask what your new fantasy motive was, i asked why my own explanation wasn't sufficient

7 again a yes or no, you didn't answer

8 you didn't answer just asked a question in return

9 you didn't answer you just asked a question in return

Please answer all the questions you were asked 1-9 (all in one post would save us time, if i can ask that). If you want to ask questions in return, put them AFTER yor answers.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Slyphic

Is this an accurate representation of your answers?

"An account named sapplecline that posts in r/rpg intrinsically claims to be that person."

1. Q: Why don't you believe Sappelcline was just an alias representing tself as an alias)? Lots of social media accounts have nicknames. Examples are trivially easy to find.

A: "because sapplecline was commenting in r/rpg."

2. Q: Also: if this were true, why does the account never post anything that is Shannon Appelcline-y? The account wrote absolutely nothing characteristic (or even parodic) of Shannon Appelcline at all.

A: " I've never talked to Applecline, so I can't judge their authenticity. But I can't think of a non-malicious reason someone would name their account so blatantly after another person and use it in a forum they are relevant to, and I don't go around assuming ill intent.
"

3. Q: "Did you check the post history before assuming the account was claiming to be Shannon Appelcline?"

A: (paraphrase) No, see answer to 2

4. Q: Why do you not believe me? (when i say my reason for arguing is to get information and provide it to others

"All my interactions with you support you being wrong in your self assessment. (actually, can you clarify this question? I'm not sure anymore I know for certain what you're asking about)"

5. Q: In this fantasy you have: Why would I want to find people to disagree with me?

A: You like to perform on a public stage

6. Q: "If I provide a link (to a time i changed in response to something on this blog) will that prove something to you? What is it supposed to prove? (I don't want to provide a link and then have you argue this time it doesn't count for some obscure reason)

A: "I'd like to see a link that proves the information you gather through argument has ever changed your position or belief on a point you stated."


7. Q: "I did not say I don't seek consensus or common ground or synthesis, I said that's not why I -argue- . Do you grasp the difference?"

A: "Yes"

8. Q: Are you claiming "synthesis" is always good?

A: "Nope"

9. Q: " What possible reason would any reasonable person have for arguing a random anonymous person that fate and timing has thrown them together with in a thread with into a "synthesis" or "common ground"? Even changing that one person's mind leaves millions untouched.

A: "Refinement of one's own ideas. Examining them from a different perspective."


-----
10. You also added:

Q: "So, again, you convey a dismissal of the entire concept of synthesis or common ground. Do I have that right?"

(A: No of course you have it wrong I said above I don't dismiss the idea. I just don't see it as a good reason to argue with strangers on the gamer internet. There are lots of better and more useful ways to seek common ground or synthesis. )
-
-
-
-
Is that a more or less accurate account of your beliefs/claims so far?

Slyphic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@slyphic

I can email them to you or you can just use the numbers and add in anything you think is missing .

Zak Sabbath said...

@Slyphic

1) Its an ironic joke. Like the punk band "Reagan Youth" is not actually a right wing pro-Reagan organization. Appelcline is an RPGnet guy and the account was posting the opposite of RPGnet-style opinions--reasonable, sane OSR-y ones.

2) What were the inconsistent arguments?

3) Why did you not go read up on Shannon's comments elsewhere and compare before making accusations?

4) I think you've made a mistake: the information I am getting is not necessarily what the other person directly claims. It's what becomes apparent. For example: the conversations above tell me people who have issues with me have problems following directions even when they're short and clear.

5) These conversations don't "prove" me right mostly because the other people never finish anything. There's no sympathetic audience for this "performance" (most people watching are unsympathetic to me or just bored). Many things I do have a much bigger "stage" or "public" than discussing RPG and harassment minutiae with yall. This theory makes no sense.

6) See 4 for why I don't think this would be relevant to my statement. If you'd like to argue it is anyway, that's fine.

7) I wasn't mocking you. In your original statement you appeared to not understand a distinction so I was establishing whether you did or not

8) I think it might be the natural state of an argument conducted in good faith around, say, a collaborative creative or managerial decision, but in the question of whether a statement is correct (most arguments I see in RPG land) its less common as in most cases the statement is either accurate or not.

9) Ok. These things have a lot of overlap with "gathering information". Sometimes information gathered changes what I'll decide to do later (for example, conversations I had last week made me decide to turn on comment moderation). This (ironically) is a rare example of a something like a synthesis in this conversation.

-
-
-
Your questions are noted. I will address them once we've put 1-9 to bed so as not to have a hydra conversation. Please respond to those in your next message, with numbers.

Maxwell Arnold said...

Even the title of this post was a command.

Zak Sabbath said...

So?

I have no coercive power over you to do what I say, so it hardly matters. I can only control what happens in my space and who i talk to—which goes for literally everyone.

People talk in commands online all the time “Go vote!” “Wear seatbelts!” “Use wider borders”

Why is this important to you?

Maxwell Arnold said...

I don't why it's important to me. I just feel intuitively that this post was meant to be interrogative, to start a dialogue, but came off as declarative. At the end of the post you ask for it's response, even to the point of outlining a set of rules for how one ought to respond. But your solicitation is directed explicitly at people who "think I am unnecessarily mean on the internet." And you didn't really ask these people any questions in the post itself. What was the goal? What data were you attempting to gain from these interactions?

I have attempted not to present myself as an accuser here, I'm asking from a place of ignorance. When you set out to write this post, before the first comment was uploaded, what was your goal

Zak Sabbath said...

My purpose?

To find out what makes the internet hatemob tick. (and: To find out if somewhere, anywhere in there theres something—anything resembling even a shadow of a rational human motive.)

Patrick Mallah said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Maxwell Arnold said...

Then why didn't you ask any questions?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Patrick

No, the former acquaintances and internet “friends” are also part of the hatemob now.

And I would ask if i was the problem when literally any of them managed to voice a complaint that made sense. This requires answering questions about thecreasons for their bizarre assumptions which, as you can see, they are totally unable to do.

Just people who didnt order fries repeatedly insisting they did and vice versa.

For example you just claime or impliedd that someone knowing me before on the internet somehow means they're not part of a hatemob now. That makes no sense and nobody could possibly take someone seriously if they didn't realize that.

Patrick Mallah said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

i asked them to voice their complaints.

that can be phrased as a question or a request, i did it as a request

Zak Sabbath said...

you only have to smear or harass an innocent person once to be part of a hatemob. they did that.

Maxwell Arnold said...

Aren't you worried that simply requesting the haters to hate without any sort of objective topic is sort of turning the faucet on and then complaining about the leak?

What, hypothetically, would be a viable complaint? If you haven't heard anything legitimately convicting since you adopted a public presence in 2009 doesn't that mean that by now you must be pretty ultimately beyond reproach? And if so, why are you still soliciting criticism ten years later?

Have you ever had to publicly apologize for anything or admit a mistake? If you have, doesn't that mean that there in fact can be a reasonable complaint, And if not, doesn't that mean you are perfect?

Why are you continuing to tap the tap on the glass to scare the fish? What was the plan here?

Zak Sabbath said...

i just said what the objective was.

i will address the rest of your post after you make a post addressing that fact.

i need to check that you can read and are sentient before continuing

Maxwell Arnold said...

I understand your stated objective was to find out what makes the hate mob tick. I can read, and am sentient. You don't have to answer my questions if you don't want. I ask them in the same spirit in which I took this post to be made. I want to understand your position better.

Patrick Mallah said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Maxwell

So if you say "I understand your stated objective was to find out what makes the hate mob tick. I can read,"

Yet you also said:

"Aren't you worried that simply requesting the haters to hate without any sort of objective topic..." "why are you still soliciting criticism ten years later?" "What was the plan here?"

So, which is it?

Please explain.

I need to know that you can grasp simple concepts and language the way ordinary humans can in conversation to be sure that a conversation would be productive.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Patrick

Maxwell asked me what my objective was or expressed ignorance of it 3 times after I stated it. How is it in any way illegitimate to check that Maxwell can read and is sentient under those circumstances? How blatant does being or playing stupid have to be before someone asks if you're stupid?

Also: I don't know what unapproved comment you mean. So far as I know all your comments have been approved except one asking why i hadn't approved your comment yet.

Maxwell Arnold said...

@Zak

I differentiate between the objective you stated: dissect the hate mob -- and an object that I consider to be specific and distinct. I apologize for failing to make that explicit. I don't consider "find out what makes the hate mob tick" to be an illegitimate objective necessarily, but in my following post I tried to convey that I felt this objective to be sort of vague, and oddly passive. And was petition an elaboration from you.

Unfortunately I fear I may not be quite as intelligent as these "ordinary humans" you so touchingly refer to, but I dont believe I've yet given you reason to think that I am terminally mentally impaired. I will prove my sentience to you repeatedly if that's where you'd like the conversation to flow. However if you find my subsequent questions worth discussing I'd be much more interested to hear your thoughts on them.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Maxwell Arnold

1) Re: this line of inquiry:
My objective would appear to be very specific and distinct. Maybe an example will help:

The mob can only be motivated by a few things I can see--
A. Legitimate grievance
B. Lack of empathy for the victim (i.e. evil)
C. Failure to understand the facts or consequences of their actions (i.e. stupidity--not ignorance since they all have google), or
D. No real motive at all just raw emotional reaction (i.e. mental illness)

So far, respondents have:

-Failed to follow simple directions for getting published in the blog comments. So far as I can tell, this could only be:
Failure to understand them (Stupidity)
Not respecting the fact that all people get to decide what's published in their own space (Evil)
Some belief that there's a reason to leave a comment despite it having no impact or chance of being published (Mental illness)

-Used logical fallacies. This could only be:
Failure to understand these are logical fallacies (Stupidity)
Using them on purpose(lack of empathy/ Evil)
Just typing to type, just to feel typing happen or something (Mental illness)

-Offered theories of behavior which don't match the facts and failing to respond when this is pointed out. This could only be
Failure to read properly (stupidity)
Not caring if their public statements about other human beings are legitimate (lack of empathy / evil)
Again just typing to type, just to feel typing happen or something like that (Mental illness)

---------

There is also a -duty of care- here on my part. I am in a situation where I am taking and will have to continue to take very serious and long-lasting steps to limit the hatemob's influence and this may upset people. I need to be as. Sure. As. I. Can. Be. that none fo them have a legitimate complaint.

-------

As for your other questions:

2) "complaining abut the leak"

The "leak" has been going on for 10 years. I didn't turn on the faucet. Gamers online behaving in a functionally evil way is a continuous problem that is not made worse by them expressing themselves on this blog. What you may see as "complaint" here in the comments is probably your misinterpreting _me raising obvious objections to check if they have considered them_.

3) A viable complaint would be one where I was unnecessarily harmful to someone. So far the only evidence was that I was far too nice to people (most of the OSR for instance).

4) "If you haven't heard anything legitimately convicting since you adopted a public presence in 2009"

I assume you know I had a public presence (just outside gaming) before that--(and you mean "convincing" maybe?). Anyway as I said: I have a -duty of care- as the stakes increase. I must _be sure_ I am not causing unnecessary harm before taking steps to alleviate the damage caused by the hatemob.

You don't do something that will upset people unless you are sure you have no other option and no good reason not to. So I am making sure nobody has a legitimate issue.

5) Have you ever had to publicly apologize for anything or admit a mistake?

Yes. For example, I did it above. I accidentally said 2 when I meant 3. Its in this comment thread.

Another example: I also apologized because I didn't realize Swords & Wizardry didn't come out until 2008.

Its not that I'm infallible, it's that I try to address complaints immediately and apologize immediately when they're legitimate. If there's a -legitimate- issue somewhere under all this evasion and trolling, I need to be sure I've considered it.

-
-
-

Maxwell Arnold said...

@zak

Word. Asked and answered.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Maxwell

Thank you for not being a massive shithead.

@Patrick

Failure on #s 3 and 4.

Tom K. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

obviously not

did you?

Zak’s sinking stomach said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@sock

see 3 and 4 above

Zak Sabbath said...

@zaks sinking stomach

This is technically a specific complaint abour a specific incident, so;

Comments are filtered in order to make a coherent and legible record of accusations and the investigation of them. If someone’s comment is just a string of random insults with no reference to any actual events that verifiably occurred that can’t be refuted or confirmed.

There is no “trying to make me look innocent” here: the audience who’d fall for tricks assumed i was guilty long ago.

So thered be no point to that.

As always: you must address this response in your next comment (ie concede you’re wring or make an argument why it must be false) or be deleted.

Zak Sabbath said...

lots of typos, sorry

Zak Sabbath said...

@sock (erased)

See #3 and #4 above.

Kyle T said...

There is a remark I would like to point out but I need to find its original post and I have limited time to search. May I e-mail this to the usual hawtmayle when I find it?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

Yes,but if you believe said it, you could simply say what you believe the comment was first.

If I agree that I actually said it and we both agree what the actual context was then we can talk about the comment's meaning without needing a link, since the fact of the comment and under what circumstances it was made will not be under dispute.

Also, I may have a record of the comment myself and can save you the trouble.

Zak’s self-inflicted dagger-wound said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Dagger

Specific question gets a specific answer:

Of course not. Since literally no-one anywhere ever in ten years has been able to make a defensible claim that I'm abusive, a mob claiming I am abusive is obviously not my fault. It is the fault of that mob being wrong.

Over and over, even here, we're getting "I DIDN'T ORDER FRIES!!!" and then there's a receipt and then you run away. No-one can be expected to take indefensible claims seriously.

To the degree it "has to do with my behavior"--mobs generally target people who are well-known in their communities. So in that sense being a well-known opponent of trolls and harassers has, of course, attracted trolls and harassers, but this is preferable to those trolls and harassers acting unchallenged.

Zak Sabbath said...

@broken (erased)

See #3 and #4 above

Reality said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Reality

A lawsuit filed as part of a process of proving an innocent person innocent of a felony and prevent further harm to innocent people is by definition not "frivolous". If it were, you'd have to claim abuse itself were "frivolous".

You need to address that point in your next comment or be deleted.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Reality (new comment erased)

See 5 above.


Zak Sabbath said...

@Reality (and in general)

You, and others, have repeatedly and quite explicitly expressed a desire that I change my behavior or point of view. Yet the actions you're taking are the ones -most guaranteed to confirm me in the belief my actions are correct and that my point of view is correct and should not change-.

When you troll or offer thin accusations you can't back up then that just further proves to me I am right and dealing with terrible people with no valid complaints.

Zak‘s perfect reflexion said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@reflexio

of course—i changed from immediately encouraging people i thought were talented in the rpg scene to being disgusted by most of them

Zak's victim complex said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak Sabbath said...

@Z.V.C.

I don't have a "personal revenge shit-list". I believe (just as you evidently do) that there are bad actors in the RPG scene who do bad things. And there's nothing personal about it: they're a danger to anyone, not just me.

Since I wrote this post, I haven't become aware of any new bad actors.

In your next response, you need to address the correction in the first paragraph (acknowledge and accept it or argue against it) or else be deleted.

Zak himself said...

Who are old bad actors, Zak?

Am I one of those bad actors?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Z.H.

Old bad actors? People who do bad things and don't make amends.

Impossible to say if you're one. I don't know who you are, (though your writing voice is a lot like one of the 4chan / GLOG guys from the OSR discord, that's barely better than a random guess).

Kyle T said...

The comment I am thinking of came from an old post in which you claimed that figuring out some important part about the way the world works was something "interesting people had figured out by the age of 3." Paraphrasing because I have not been able to recall it, but it was something outside your trifecta of calling people stupid/ignorant/evil as you've done in this discussion, it bothered me because it took me a long time to figure that out for myself, and I could see no reason for the hyperbole besides a purely

Since I have been unable to find the exact comment (I'd say it was from the 2015-2016 period) and can only paraphrase, I will freely admit I could be mis-remembering this and will apologize if that is the case.

Zak Sabbath said...

@kyle t

that definitely sounds like something I would say.

without figuring out what exactly we were talking about it is difficult to know for sure what I was trying to get at there

A typical scenario would be :

someone announces — with angst and as if they’re the first person to think of it — something childishly obvious like “ people should think about the role violence plays in their lives !!” and I make the kind of comment I did in order to emphasize that this is childishly obvious and Not something to be wasting everyone’s time with In a public post.

The people who are in these conversations were all adults So if they don’t know something childishly obvious it is wholly appropriate to point out That they have failed to be intelligent or interesting here if they haven’t figured this out and so should improve themselves .

My goal had nothing to do with anyone’s feelings. And the obvious response would’ve been to -ask- Why I said it if you thought it was some unconstructive reason.

A person might counter that if the goal was to suggest people improve themselves (ie to help them) it would behoove me to be less direct. I would counter that this has never worked ever in the history of RPG conversations—People have been passive aggressively critiquing each other without actually saying what they believe for decades and it hasn’t worked at all or improved anyone.

embarrassing people who believe stupid things might not work any better ( I suspect now that it does not , based in data I did not possess at the time) It does have the clear virtue of warning everyone else reading to stay away from them until they smarten up — which is a good outcome .

Zak Sabbath said...

@based -on- data”, sorry

Kyle T said...

I understand the logic of the comment, but it bothered me because the "and so should improve themselves" section was not even implied - it was framed as dismissive, as though such improvement was impossible. I was not deeply hurt by this but it did strike me as unnecessarily mean because people take varying amounts of time to figure shit out, as I certainly did.

Thank you for explaining the logic of the statement. I think any further question I have would be just to pick at things you presume to be true because of said statements.

Zak Sabbath said...

@kyle t

If you think someone did something bad and assume motive without asking the fault is entirely yours. Everyone has to always assume good faith until you can prove otherwise.

if you have anything else to pick at: go ahead and pick.

Kyle T said...

I have no further questions, that was the only comment that stood out and bothered me specifically. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Johnny Jazzhands

Rule 3, Rule 4

Zak Sabbath said...

It looks like I've got all the responses I'm going to get.

Since I don't think most people are interested enough for this to be a whole blog entry, I'll put my conclusions here, in case anyone is curious. Since nobody's been able to articulate a complaint:

1) (Assertion) There aren't any legitimate complaints.

2) (Assertion) Some of the complaints are just the usual internet sadism.

3) (Conjecture) The more earnest attacks come from people who--although earnest--do not have any sense that they need to be fair to their victim. (Thus the total failure to do easy things that might be required to -check- if an attack is warranted.) The only reason I can think of is that they feel powerless in their lives so often that, therefore, the idea they might have enough power that they might be obligated to be fair to someone else is alien. Its not that they have no sense of fairness (they probably feel the same way about Trump's immigrant concentration camps that I do) it's just that the idea that they -personally- need to be its agent is not something theyve ever considered (despite it being, in many jurisdictions, a legal necessity). Thus the total impatience with any procedure fairness might require.

More on that: https://www.autostraddle.com/in-conversation-with-sarah-schulman-theyre-being-taught-that-control-is-freedom-376920/2/

Zak Sabbath said...

@Grif

Erased--It's remarkable and disturbing that you went to all the trouble to comment on this old post without reading it first.

Rule 3, Rule 4