Thursday, February 17, 2022

Nora Reed (Goons on Trial pt 3)

 Part one here - Part two here


Day three of explaining about the goons. If you want the more detailed version--go to that link and vote.


For the last three years, the atmosphere over here has been a lot like a bad '70s outlaw country song: Risk, gambles, waiting for The Judge, going down to the courthouse, goddamn this town, known pornographers, long trips in cars (to avoid the plague), strangers in masks buying you shots because they see the look in your eye, tarot card readings from strippers who are also witnesses, heartfelt letters from dead friends' parents, testifying. This is mostly what I do now.


There is a lot of the physical world. Reality. It is a constant reminder of how much of the physical world is not visible anywhere in the goon's universe.


We come now to Nora Reed.


I am unaware of ever having interacted directly with Nora Reed. I don't know what Nora Reed thinks I did to deserve Nora Reed, I don't know which of Nora Reed's standard-issue hard-left political positions Nora Reed fantasizes I would disagree with (none I can find), I don't know what Nora Reed has to do with games, I don't know who the man Nora Reed imagines when they imagines me or what, in Nora's mind, that Zak cares about or what his motives could be.


I do know what Nora Reed thinks of Nora Reed as Nora does tend to tweet about it a lot. I also know:

  • Nora began smearing me in the 20teens, parroting the same shit all the other goons say.
  • Nora also harasses: Joe Biden, fashion designer and Project Runway judge Isaac Mizrahi, the twitter support staff, author/journalist Sarah Kendzior, Steven Colbert, game designer Luke Crane, several mayors and public officials, and dozens of other seemingly random targets.
  • Nora builds twitter bots that also harass people by calling them names. Nobody can explain why.
  • Nora has been thrown off twitter for harassment multiple times.
  • Nora brands themself as an anti-harassment activist.
  • I cannot find any conversation where Nora begins by disagreeing with a fellow human being that doesn't end with Nora attacking them.
  • Nora admits to being a troll.
  • Nothing ever seems to happen offline to Nora.
  • Nora has over 10,000 followers anyway and some of them are reading this.

Like with the other goons, I got the therapist to take a look at Nora's tweets and try to figure out why Nora is doing all this. 


The shrink, based on Nora's online communications, said:

Nora says they have anxiety and depression and the meds they say they're taking support that (although it is a strange mix) but there are also strong indications of something like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.


Compulsions and anxiety are often related, you're doing something in order to reduce anxiety--often around specific obsessive worries.

In the DSM OCD is marked by...
"Recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges or images that are experienced, at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive, unwanted, and that in most individuals cause marked anxiety or distress."

Nora describes that kind of thinking in tweets. The DSM then describes compulsions themselves this way:

"The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation. However, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive."

Repeatedly writing "eat shit" to targets who will just see you as one more troll and block you or creating bots which you admit don't do anything useful as a way of expressing anger at those targets could fit the bill of a compulsion.


Ironically, a high degree of social anxiety can lead to this kind of depersonalized aggression against strangers. The anxious person can only want to have conversations with people they've already decided are "Ok" so they can't talk to someone they want to attack and learn they might have been wrong.

This could be what's happening: Nora's constant online aggression looks like it could be a loop which starts when Nora feels anxiety about something, then Nora lashes out at a target they feel is associated with it to try to feel better, the target often doesn't realize that Nora's speech act isn't really communication and responds by communicating back. But in this scenario, they're really just interacting with a symptom. Nora started the "conversation" to vent and never intended to voice a constructive criticism the target can address, and this response from the target makes Nora more anxious (anxious people don't like confrontation) and aggressive and the cycle starts again.

Although Nora refers to having a therapist, the fact that they haven't taken any steps to stop or mitigate the harm they've done suggests that Nora hasn't framed this online behavior to the therapist as something to work on and the therapist likely doesn't even know about it.

As for why they'd believe or pretend to believe the things they say about you in particular, it may be that the loop is part of a distraction from thinking too hard about it or they may just be one more person with cluster personality disorders like with the examples you showed me earlier.  Or they're just gullible.

So that's Nora. Next time I think: Freyja Erlings.




43 comments:

Simon Tsevelev said...

Note: Luke Crane is an abuser, so while it's still wrong to abuse him, I don't really care about his wellbeing.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Simon Tsevelev

True, Luke Crane is an abuser.

Benjamin Cusack said...

I don't even know what to say.

A person who causes problems in the RPG sphere, but seemingly does not do anything to help or collaborate or create anything.

So they have no blog, no itch.io, no wordpress, no YT, no books, nothing?

So are they just fan of some things, and one of those people who somehow has opinions that people latch onto, despite the person behind the opinions creating jack-all?

What a strange person.

Benjamin Cusack said...

Just to add, after looking around, they have a Patreon, the do write things, and they mostly make bots.
So they do make "stuff".
Just not nessecarily a lot, and seemingly a lot is just in the moment and fleeting stuff, usually about some thing that upset them.
It fits.

What really wilds me out is when people pin terrible stuff on you Zak, when for a long time you espoused the notions that they now hold.
It is like they cannot let go, or reexamine their past actions, like they didn't matter somehow.

Zak Sabbath said...

@roland

deleted misinformation is not allowed on my page.
If you believe you’ve gotten this in error send an email to zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm

Zak Sabbath said...

@tigersica

deleted misinformation is not allowed on the blog

Jan said...

I'd like to know more.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

Of course not.

1. The "traumtizing thing" is just one of tons of bad shit he did online.
2. Including attacking Mike Pondsmith
3. And joining the hatemob against me
4. And supporting almost all of the worst abuser in the indie creator scene
5. He's taken no steps to fix any of the damage he did
6. I'm unaware of him ever doing anything uniquely positive for anyone on any level or ever contributing positively but even if I was, allowing people to escape accountability for bad acts just because of supposed good acts only creates bigger problems and isn't worth it in anything sort of life-or-death-level situations like being in a POW camp.

Were you unaware of 1-4 or do you just not care?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Beyer

"The traumatizing thing I was refering to was..."

Yes I know.

"I didn't know about 1-4. "

Well now you do. If you need details, ask.

" I don't think 5 is possible other than by admitting to what he did"

That's wholly incorrect:

-He could reach out to each victim affected by his bullshit and ask them what reparations they'd need to undo the harm he did
-He could also explain honestly how he came to, internally justified and spread hate in the community so that the same thing couldn't happen again
-He could call out, by name, the people who helped him do this and urge everyone to not help them in any way until they hold themselves accountable, and sk them to donate money to legal action against them
-He could turn over the profits he made on his games to his victims
-He could ask the various forums dedicated to his work to shut down or to do fundraisers for his victims

-"I'm not sure what you mean by "uniquely positive". "

Like lots of people can be relied upon to retweet random progressive tweets. That's not "unique" even if in some way it might be viewed as "positive". I am unaware of him doing anything else positive ever.

-"I've enjoyed some of his videos on b/x dnd."

Well he helped destroy human lives and encourage a hatemob, so even if you are a lovely person who very much deserves to be entertained for a few hours, I think destroying peoples lives and encouraging a hate mob kinda outweighs that, unfortunately.

"Do you have a link on the pondsmith thing?"

Adam deleted a lot of his old tweets but he's one where he attacks Pondsmith's Cyberpunk RPG for having sexy art, at the bottom of this article:

https://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2021/03/pattern-anyone.html



Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

"I don't feel like anyone really cares about 1-4, "
It doesn't matter if they care, they still prove he did bad things that he has to fix.

"1500k hours"
Still not enough entertainment to be worth a human life. No amount of entertainment is, actually.

"I think we can assume that the average viewer is of average merit"
I disagree, but unless you disagree with the above point, it's not worth taking apart and a moot point.

"Profits made on games aren't investment income,"
Irrelevant: he owes his victims whatever he has.

" It doesn't make sense to shut down forums dedicated to his work, either, as it would harm his ability to make reparations "
The victims get to decide that: do they want more money or less Koebel. Ask them.

" There would be a lot of collateral damage done in seeking that outcome."
Again, irrelevant unless you disagree with the above, but I can't see any damage. Everyone involved is currently supporting an abuser.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon breyer

Please address these things.

Kyle T said...

Fuck Koebel, first of all.

Second, I'm reminded of this article right now, which makes a plausible case for anger and unending punishment to wrongdoing as morally correct: https://bostonreview.net/forum/agnes-callard-philosophy-anger/

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

I read it and it's not relevant to this discussion since nobody is proposing unending punishment.




DERAIL:
Although the article is irrelevant, it seems to ascribe to unending punishment, unending anger and revenge useful functions that could all be served by mere suspicion and mechanisms that enforce the lowered degree of trust that suspicion entails.

Kyle T said...

Your way of thinking towards taking steps to redress a wrong is mechanistic enough that I think if you laid out what somebody needed to do, and they did it, you'd take it at face value and that'd be that, so in that I agree.

However, I do think the section on the psychological costs of realigning yourself to do what you need to do to correct a wrongdoing is relevant in this series of articles based on your descriptions of how your life has changed in the face of all the depositions and lawsuits. I think those costs are unavoidable and necessary in the circumstances, to be clear.

I also think the Goons being profiled, among others, would think the conclusion of the article correct but disagree with some of its premises so there's that.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

There is no point in discussing ideas no-one present and speaking believes.

If you believe some Goons or some Christian, Buddhist or other spiritual-gibberish-based social control teachings around the alleged "costs" of normal emotions are right: say what you think using your keyboard and it gets discussed. Otherwise it's just a distraction.

Kyle T said...

I'm not sure if it's right or not, but I'm interested in hearing more about, in addition to the practical concerns of scheduling and putting up with all the business required of depositions and lawsuits, if you feel like there's been any emotional toll on your part associated with doing so separate from what you've discussed before in terms of the harassment and social sanctions. Those obviously would have occurred whether or not you chose to take legal action.

I'm also not sure what you mean by normal emotions specifically here, can you clarify?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

Normal emotions? The one discussed in the article you came to this blog and logged in an posted about: anger.

Anyway, it would be ridiculous to assume:

-I have no feelings about the destruction of my life, or

-there's some special reason to talk about them here, in this discussion, about what's wrong with Nora Reed or what Adam Koebel would have to do in the extremely theoretical world where he decides to make amends.

Kyle T said...

It's the thing that came to mind while going over this series of articles. If it's not relevant here, I can go address it in the comments of the article that mentions the depositions specifically. If not, sorry I brought it up.

So in the theoretical world where Adam is remorseful, you listed a number of things he could do. Are any one or number of them sufficient redress?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

it's relevant _where_ you address it than it is to explain:
-What are you yourself trying to say here?
-Why are you bringing it up at all?

"in the theoretical world where Adam is remorseful, you listed a number of things he could do. Are any one or number of them sufficient redress?"

For me? Yes. I don't know how his other victims feel.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

-Byron's choice was his own. I did not choose to sacrifice my life for your entertainment.

-All the other shit:

For now and to go back to the start--You claimed there was no way Adam could contribute to fixing the damage he did, I pointed out there's lots of ways.

Regardless of which you quibble with, do you now grasp that there's lots of ways Adam could help fix the problems he created?

-""Everyone involved is currently supporting an abuser.""I don't understand what they're involved in. Supporting Koebel? I assume you are talking in the hypothetical forgiven Koebel state?"

No:

If you are online in any forum actively posting about Adam's projects (especially in a positive way) you are increasing the likelihood someone will patronize one of them in such a way that they give Adam money. Since Adam is an abuser, they are supporting an abuser.

So a subreddit built around one of his games, for instance, helps support this abuser.

If those people have to stop doing tha t and posting there: no harm done. Some folks who support an abuser don't get to talk about a game anymore? This is negligible against the cost of a human life.

Kyle T said...

Assuming you mean less relevant there.

"What are you yourself trying to say here?"

Because of your zeal in prosecuting your harassers and comments you have made in past posts and comment threads here (I can find them if needed, but you have posted numerous times about how far you will take appeals, and that you are in a position where you either commit to this pursuit or kill yourself), it seemed like you had aligned yourself to the pursuit of redress as described in the article I linked, but not, as you say, to the point of demanding unending punishment. I was indeed asking about the toll that was taking beyond the matter of legal scheduling and endless depositions, if any, based on the premises of the text since I had recently read it and it had been on my mind.

If you don't feel like there's any unusual emotional toll, then that's fine, and the premises of the text are flawed. Again, sorry I brought it up.

"Why are you bringing it up at all?"

A mixture of curiosity, concern for your health and wellbeing, and parasocial attachment.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

The emotional toll is significant, but the emotional toll of having utterly ordinary negative emotions toward shitty people and being aware of them pales in comparison to the emotional toll of:

-Consistently being denied real things that are important because of those shitty peoples' actions
and
-being asked or expected to perform these emotions in order to get help with the real things or recognition that those people are shitty

I am not Patrick Stuart--I have a human support system outside the internet. What no-one has is a way to solve this problem that doesn't involve gamers on the internet working to undo what gamers on the internet already did:

If you have concern for my wellbeing, I would humbly ask you focus on that instead.

Every calorie you might expend asking about my well-being, worrying about it, formulating what to ask about it, giving advice about it, or apologizing for having done it, just spend that instead on organizing on the internet to decancel me.

If you don't know how, as always: email me-- zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawn calm

Kyle T said...

At least with regard to apologizing for having done it, just following best practices for discussion in these threads as you've laid out in the past.

Apart from DW, I'm not aware of other games Koebel had a hand in developing, but I'm looking for a bibliography elsewhere.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T


All good.

Brandon Breyer said...

Zak, thank you. I'll be rereading this exchange a few times.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

Ok but I asked a question:

"Regardless of which you quibble with, do you now grasp that there's lots of ways Adam could help fix the problems he created?"

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

The rules for the comments on this blog are that you have to answer questions.

You won't be allowed to leave a comment until you answer the question you were asked.

Above there is a yes or no question: please answer "yes" or "no" if you can.

After that we can discuss any new ideas you want to introduce.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

You went through the list and left comments on each one (introducing new ideas as you commented), I did not ask you to do that, it complicates the conversation to do that because then I have to give increasingly one answers addressing the new issue you raise.

So, for the sake of a linear conversation that is easy to follow, please give a ye or no answer to this question now EVEN IF you think hat somehow in your previous long discursive answer there is an answer buried somewhere in it:

"Do you now grasp that there's lots of ways Adam could help fix the problems he created?"

Please type "yes" or "no"--not a long discursive answer introducing new ideas. Then AFTERWARDS we can discuss any new ideas you want to introduce.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

Great, thank you for engaging.

Let's take a look at the other issues you raised:

-"He could reach out to each victim..."
-This would be great.

So we're agreed there.

-"He could also explain honestly..." This would be tricky as it would be hard to gauge honesty and
-I don't know if it would have the intended effect. It would be interesting to see the result of that, though.
-It could be a good thing, or it could turn into an "I didn't use the correct cards," thing.

Obviously if he'd previously reached out to his victims before issuing such a statement they'd be able to check whether what he was saying was true, Even if not persuasive to anyone, it would provide neutral and good actors leads to follow up in investigating how hate mongers like Koebel got so influential.

-"He could call out, by name, the people who helped him do this" I like that.

We agree there, great

-"and ask [the fans of other abuse enablers] to donate money to legal action against them"
-I don't think that's legal, but IANAL. I think the Gawker (? Hulk Hogan) thing had to be funded
-in secret, for some legal reason.

I tell you with 100% personal knowledge it's totally legal to donate money to someone's legal fund, people donate to mine all the time. If anyone did it in secret it's because they fear the defendant's wrath, not the state's.

-"He could turn over the profits..."
-I don't think highly of this. Have a judge ascertain damages, then pay them.

Again I can say with 100% personal knowledge, that's not how this works.
In a world where Koebel admits wrongdoing and talks to his victims (which is what we're positing) there's no judge --the court system has no time for people who aren't even suing each other. If Koebel is admitting to wrongdoing and wants to fix the problem then he isn't getting sued because why would the victim go to all the expense of suing in that case? So there's no judge because there's no legal case.

And even if there was, if Koebel admits to wrongdoing then (like most cases) there's no judge because the case settles (in which case Koebel and his victim essential negotiate a business deal over how much Koebel owes). There's only a judge when a case can't settle and the people involved then decide to go to trial (which is rare) which, in the world we're positing, he wouldn't do because he is admitting wrongdoing.

-"He could ask the various forums dedicated to his work to shut down..."
-Absolutely not. My position on this is that his work and, for instance, yours, are separate

Why? He's not HP Lovecraft--He's alive: he profits monetarily from his work.

You can _like_ the work, but the second you _promote_ the work, you're helping put money in the abuser's pocket. Now: it's entirely possible that he makes such extensive amends that no victim asks this of him, but it is an example of something he could do to help.

(cont'd)

Zak Sabbath said...

(cont'd)

@Brandon Breyer


- I feel like he should publicly apologize (might not be possible due to legal advice

In such a target-rich environment you only sue the people who WON'T apologize. The people who will are the least dangerous.


-"or to do fundraisers for his victims." That's good.

So we agree.

-Zak, your tone is off: "quibble"

I don't know what this means.

-and your arguments are off: "I did not choose to sacrifice my life for your entertainment."
-I don't even know how you can say that. Could you explain how that follows from anything said previously?

It has to do with your claim about Byron and entertainment-- it is a vague claim, I admit, but it seemed you were saying that Byron was so entertained by Greek culture he'd willingly die for it. I am not so entertained by Koebel that I'd give up my life for that entertainment, nor do I prize anyone else's entertainment that much.

-"It might be worth having a friend who knows you better read
-through some of your last year or so of blog posts and see if there's been any degradation of thought."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If you're trying to suggest that asking that my abuser be brought to justice is irrational that's some fucked-up shit and, no, none of my friends seem to think I'm any stupider or less sane than I was before.

-"Honestly, I think about your situation a lot and I don't
-actually use your products I just hate what's happened.
-I don't feel like there's anything I can do about it"

You are 100% wrong about that--there are dozens of things you could do if you cared. Anonymous gamers on the internet created this problem, they can do lots of things to solve it.

If you actually are interested in helping, email zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawn calm (though I don't assume you are).


-I could probably start by not poking you about Koebel, lol.

Again 100% wrong. Asking questions is always good especially since it looks like your thinking on the subject has clarified during the course of the conversation and you've provided other people an opportunity to chip in.

Never apologize for asking questions or raising issues. Only apologize for NOT doing that.

"Do you have anything on the Koebel/Pondsmith thing other than the "[this ass is why I don't like cyberpunk 2020]"?

No. But that's vile enough.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

-"quibble"
-I meant I felt it to be belittling.

Then you just ask "Did you meant this to be belittling?"
And the answer you'd get is: No, I just meant that to me the issues of exactly what Adam could do were less important than first establishing the idea there's things he can do.
It took a while but you did eventually answer that question so that's finished.


-"Obviously if he'd previously reached out to his victims
-before issuing such a statement they'd be able to check
-whether what he was saying was true, "
-So the reason you would make a statement like this isn't to hel
-your victims, though that would be nice, but to prevent future
-victimization of others.

No it would be both as the victims' image is distorted by the attacks and "resetting" it requires showing how that was done--like explaining Nazi propaganda techniques after WW2.

"There's no reason to get a former victim's permission to prevent future harm to others."

Not asking for the former victims' _permission_ to do it, you're asking for the victims to fact-check Adam.

-You can admit wrongdoing without coming to a settlement.
-You just say to a judge, "It's been determined that I'm guilty,
-but not how much I owe, what do you think?" I feel like the
-legal costs there would be minimal as well.

That's not really a thing that exists in most jurisdictions but Im not against it (that is: arbitration by a judge). Point is: if Adam's victims can be made whole in some way by money, someone should give it to them and the victim's voice matters a lot in that discussion because we do -not- have a legal system where anyone other than the victim or their advocates investigate that or really have the tools to explain how a victim's been harmed or what would fix it.


-"Why? He's not HP Lovecraft--He's alive: he
-profits monetarily from his work. You can _like_ the work,
-but the second you _promote_ the work, you're helping put
-money in the abuser's pocket."
-The man is alive. He has pockets.
-They need to be filled.

I don't really see why they need to be filled with money SPECIFICALLY from creative endeavors that he enjoys and that will spread his fame and influence. He can work at McDonalds.

While I am not saying he _must_ stop producing, the argument that people need money to live doesn't necessitate that that money come from RPG products or creative products in general.

Koebel voluntarily ceasing to work is, as I said, not necessary, but it would send a powerful message that what he did was on a level of a wrong it would be dangerous to repeat. Again, I am tempted to a WW2 analogy: Unlike the US, the Germans outlawed NAzi imagery. Necessary? Maybe not, but it sent a message to the next generation: this was REALLY wrong, let's REALLY not do this again.

(cont'd)

Zak Sabbath said...

(cont'd)

@Brandon Breyer


"it seemed you were saying that Byron was so entertained by Greek culture he'd willingly die for it."
That's what I meant. I could definitely be wrong.

"I am not so entertained by Koebel that I'd give up my life for that entertainment"
I don't think you would be giving up your life by allowing Koebel to publish in the RPG industry again.

My life is currently destroyed because of the actions of Koebel et al. If I am not successful in a number of risky gambles including going to court a lot it will remain destroyed forever. If my situation does not change I am better off dead and it's likely that it won't. We will see.

Point is: what has happened to me due to people like Adam Koebel is a price no innocent person should have to pay just so Adam Koebel can go back to entertaining people.

His bad actions need to be revealed and future possible victims need to be protected from not just him but from continuing a social norm where a person can do things like he does and not get caught, thus inspiring other bad actors to just make sure they are popular and use soft-sounding social justice before joining a hate mob.


-"If you're trying to suggest that asking that my abuser
-be brought to justice is irrational that's some fucked-up shit"
-Yeah that's legit.

Glad we sorted that out

-"I have no idea what you're talking about here."
-I feel like there's some logical holes in what you're saying
- in general, on this blog. That's a nasty thing to say without
-examples, but it's just a general impression.

Then you should stop saying it. Extremely well-paid lawyers have been trying to find logical holes in what I'm saying on here for 3 years. So far they haven't. If you do get an example: I am happy to entertain it. Come back at that time.

I believe in your right to contest my claims and believe I am obligated to reply and explain myself--which is more than you'll get from pretty much anyone else in the RPG world.

- "'m saying consider having someone who knows
-you look over your shoulder to see if there's a
-(negative) difference in your writing between say
-the last year and 5 years ago.

There is a very obvious difference: I now write assuming a large part of the audience is a bunch of untrustworthy morons. I write simpler things to this audience, I write less frequently and I use shorter words. It isn't due to my mental state, it's because it has been objectively proven that a lot of untrustworthy morons read the blog. Not to mention their lawyers.

As I already said: my friends understand this perfectly well. They also read other things I write besides RPG crap so they know this.

People who read Cube World find pretty much the same voice they'd expect in Red & Pleasant Land, et al.


-"You are 100% wrong about that--
-there are dozens of things you could do if you cared."
-I don't participate in social media so I can't fact-check people.

First: You are currently participating in social media (or whatever the blogosphere is) by leaving comments so you obviously can and you need do nothing more than things much like this to help.
Second: You obviously have all the tools to begin to participate in the parts of it you don't already (a computer, basic literacy, the ability to type).

In reality I just don't think you're that motivated. People who don't like my work usually aren't--that's fine.

-I've emailed drivethrurpg (etc)...

Yes that's why I ask you to contact me. Doing things that don't work and acting along, does not prove there's nothing you can do. Theres lots of other stuff.

"provided other people an opportunity to chip in."
-I haven't been keeping up on that.
-Hopefully that hasn't been a detriment.

It has not.

Kyle T said...

"There is a very obvious difference: I now write assuming a large part of the audience is a bunch of untrustworthy morons. I write simpler things to this audience, I write less frequently and I use shorter words. It isn't due to my mental state, it's because it has been objectively proven that a lot of untrustworthy morons read the blog. Not to mention their lawyers."

I can confirm noticing this. I wouldn't expect a post like your connection of Nordau's Degeneration to the RPG critique of the early 10s in the blog as it is now.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

Yeah. I write for people who--literally, objectively, according to their own secondhand public and private accounts of what they claim is on here--can't read.

If it didn't affect how I wrote _that_ would be weird.

Zak Sabbath said...


....speaking of people who can't read:

@venger Satanis

Comment deleted.

To repeat myself from 2 years ago:

"You're banned until you correct your incredibly lonnnnnnng record of misinformation and first-strike personal attacks."

Not sure why you thought this had (or could) change.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

I addressed your claims in my comment above.

Please respond so I know whether you understand and accept what was said to you.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

You've had several days to respond and haven't--your comments will be deleted.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

Let's simplify:

Regardless fo what you might have taken away from what I said before, this is what I meant, please respond to it:

-Adam Koebel contributed to destroying a human life (mine).

-He also did other shitty things.

-If he apologized and took all the steps he could to try to undo the damage he did, then I see no moral problem with him being uncancelled.

-If not, I see a huge moral problem with it.

-Whether he's entertaining to anyone or not doesn't really matter to me, since it's my life he helped destroy.

----


Respond to that.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

In your next response, It would help if you don't expand on your -reasons- for your answers, just give simple, clear answers of "yes" or "no". Once that is done, if any of them do not make sense, then I'll ask why and you can expand on your answers. It will speed this up.

a- I do not think any of your claims regarding me being irrational are justified. I don't know why you said it, seems like you either just said t for no real reason or misread something.

At any rate what a person is supposed to do when the other party doesn't seem to make sense isn't make a vague claim of irrationality but, instead, point to the specific apparently irrational statement for clarification. Please do that in the future--with me and anyone else in a similar situation.

Ok? Y/N

b- " I guess the main issue is "all the steps he could" is vague enough to make some really unreasonable demands."

People who do bad things (like Adam) must --at minimum--apologize and contact their victims (if possible) to see what the victims say.

Agreed? Y/N

c-That's the minimum. If he contacted me (one of the victims) I'd have a list of things he -could- do, it is not necessary to do -all- of them, but it's up to us (the victim and the person making amends) to decide what's fair once contact is made, not you--a largely unaffected party.

Agreed? Y/N

d-He hasn't even done the minimum described in B, so it's a moot point.

Agreed? Y/N

e-He probably won't ever do it so it's even more moot.

Agreed? Y/N

f-You irrationally said said you didn't think it'd even be -possible- for Adam to help fix the damage he did, which lack of imagination on your part is why I started listing all kinds of ways Adam could potentially help his victims.

Do you remember that? Y/N

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

-Re: first three paragraphs.

Good, glad we cleared that up.


-Last two paragraphs:

Why? (Be specific.)

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

Your comment was not published because you dodged the question you were asked.

You were asked point blank "Why" you refuse to speak to me on my terms and you didn't answer (or maybe you sprinkled some elements of what maybe you think -might- be an answer throughout some other unrelated response, it's hard to tell.)

At any rate, you were asked a direct question and didn't help out your interlocutor or reader by addressing it clearly and directly.

In order to be published here, parties in a conversation have to answer each others' questions. It makes the conversation legible.

You will not be published here until you apologize and fix that problem.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

Why not simply answer "No" when you mean "No" and then clarify if asked?

It avoids two situations which make conversations slower, more confusing and worse:

-Getting so excited with your explanation you give an explanation without any actual clear answer, thus making the whole situation more confusing. (as you did in your unpublished multiparagraph answer to F) and forcing the whole conversation to slow down.

-Giving an unnecessary "explanation" that introduces new issues that then have to be dealt with (as you did just now by inaccurately conflating the concept of "false dichotomy" with "given two packages I clearly choose one, but really wanna explain why I chose one in detail despite not being asked yet")

Please answer.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Brandon Breyer

You've gone non responsive again.

Questions have to be answered in a conversation, not ignored.

Your previous comments will be deleted.