RPG Writer Zak S Accused Of Abusive Behaviour

kenmarable said:

Thanks. Definitely didn’t want to keep making it about me, but when they say something so easily proved false, it’s hard not to call them on it. But it also proves that I should spend more time with my Ignore List than trying to take these disingenuous arguments seriously.

Click to expand...

I need a t-shirt that says "I went to university for 4 years to get an English degree so I could point out to Internet trolls what an analogy is and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

And many jurisdictions within which courts operate have laws about people being able to make money from books and the like while they are behind bars.

But not buying anything from him isn't about punishing him. It's about condemning what he's done to others and not wanting to put money in his pocket.

Click to expand...

Sure it's about punishing him. No doubt it is. THAT is an open-shut case. If you wanted to condemn him, you would merely say it. Condemnation is a verbal thing.
But you want him to feel it. That is the punishment. It's the modern vigilantes equivalent of "Let's beat the ********** bloody."

I have a question for you: suppose someone else was convicted of child molestation and had served his time. Do you see any reason why anyone should give such a guy any money for anything at all? Or should we add to his punishment AFTER he paid the official price (which implies the served time was not enough)?

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

And we're back to your position of ethics by proximity.

It's like you've somehow managed to fail to even be qualified to participate in a conversation involving ethics. That's all kind of messed up.

Click to expand...

Well, if I had personal information on the people involved and was certain the victim was telling the truth and the victim would know me, then of course I wouldn't buy from Mr. Smith. It would be hurtful to the victim if she found out, understandably so. It would feel like personal betrayal. But she can't have the same expectation from a stranger who doesn't know the case.

You're pretending as if close personal contact doesn't change the situation. This is absurd. Com'on, let's have some higher standards in our conversation than this.

TwoSix said:

All ethics are local. That's why we're talking about one particular rapist, because it impacts our fairly small community. Logically, we should be far more concerned about the tens of thousands of Burmese soldier rapists who attacked the Rohingya, to name one atrocity in a world filled with them.

Click to expand...

I believe his “ethics by proximity” comment is not in reference to being more focused on a problem in our community, but more in response to the (multiple) statements of “it doesn’t affect anyone I personally know, so it’s not my concern” which takes the idea that ethics are local to an indefensible extreme.

TwoSix said:

All ethics are local. That's why we're talking about one particular rapist, because it impacts our fairly small community. Logically, we should be far more concerned about the tens of thousands of Burmese soldier rapists who attacked the Rohingya, to name one atrocity in a world filled with them.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between "I've spent more attention today on this rapist in the gaming community today because that's what's coursing through my many gaming related social feeds but not enough time focusing on this massacre on the otherside of the world" and some guy who actually jumped into this conversation with (to paraphrase) "this isn't about me or anyone I know, so why should I care?" to be followed with "I don't spend much time looking into this more or giving it credence because it's not about me, but I would if it was about me". And there certainly is a difference in the two when the latter person is taking the time to show up in a thread talking about a specific incident and underscores their need to be central to the situation to be concerned with the subject of what everyone is talking about.

Alexander Kalinowski said:

Sure it's about punishing him. No doubt it is. THAT is an open-shut case. If you wanted to condemn him, you would merely say it. Condemnation is a verbal thing.
But you want him to feel it. That is the punishment. It's the modern vigilantes equivalent of "Let's beat the ********** bloody."

I have a question for you: suppose someone else was convicted of child molestation and had served his time. Do you see any reason why anyone should give such a guy any money for anything at all? Or should we add to his punishment AFTER he paid the official price (which implies the served time was not enough)?

Click to expand...

Well, since Zak hasn't been accused of child molestation, doesn't seem at all contrite about his behavior so it doesn't appear any rehabilitation has happened, and we aren't beating the bastard bloody... I'm having a hard time seeing exactly how excoriating someone online and recommending that his ENnies be rescinded is really all that comparable.

That said, if someone actually pays their penalties and tries to make amends, I extend them some goodwill. I want to believe people can improve themselves and will give them a chance to do so. That puts the ball right in Zak's court, but I expect he'll squander any opportunity for redemption.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

Unless you're adult and empathetic enough to realize that by showing people that a specific type of behaviour isn't welcome within a community, at all levels (including something incredibly public, like say ... an award) that you're doing something so that those people who have been victims hopefully feel safer, and would be victims feel like the community has an eye open and is watching their back.

You know ... just for example.

But you've already illustrated that you and empathy are not on speaking terms, so ...

Click to expand...

You got it backwards, I'm afraid: we have given up on people taking justice into their own hands. It leads to lynch mobs. And in modern times to internet lynching mobs. We have laws against sexual harrassment, established procedures to detecting it and agreed upon sanctions. We have those so that private citizens do not go out there and avenge alleged offenses themselves - in whatever form. Boycotts to punish wrong-doing are just vigilantism. You're just not beating someone up physically.

Do you understand that? And do you understand why it's so important to give up on personal revenge? Because being part of a lynch mob feels gooood. It makes you feel both righteous and powerful. And you know what? Lynch mobs always have good reasons. They always just protect the innocent and helpless from the wicked.

Alexander Kalinowski said:

Sure it's about punishing him. No doubt it is. THAT is an open-shut case. If you wanted to condemn him, you would merely say it. Condemnation is a verbal thing.

Click to expand...

For some people it is, no doubt, but you can't see beyond that because your empathy gas tank is empty so your car doesn't drive very far on the humanity highway.

But you want him to feel it. That is the punishment. It's the modern vigilantes equivalent of "Let's beat the ********** bloody."

Click to expand...

Yes.

Taking away his award and not buying from him is EXACTLY the modern equivalent of beating him to hell. EXACTLY.

(Because nobody goes around beating the crap out of people in this day and age, let alone all the other nonsense inherent to your point.)

I have a question for you: suppose someone else was convicted of child molestation and had served his time. Do you see any reason why anyone should give such a guy any money for anything at all? Or should we add to his punishment AFTER he paid the official price (which implies the served time was not enough)?

Click to expand...

How am I not surprised that you're only able to focus on his "time" and it doesn't even occur to you to mention in your ANALOGY (sideways nod) whether or not he's rehabilitated or remorseful.

Big shock! You've somehow managed to not account for the human aspect of the correctional system.

Well, if I had personal information on the people involved and was certain the victim was telling the truth and the victim would know me, then of course I wouldn't buy from Mr. Smith. It would be hurtful to the victim if she found out, understandably so. It would feel like personal betrayal. But she can't have the same expectation from a stranger who doesn't know the case.

Click to expand...

Again, you prove how foreign empathy is. You're closest attempt at empathy is you talking about what people expect of you and whether or not you can meet those expectations.

Empathy is actually about what you do and feel even when that person will never ever know you did it or felt that way.

You're pretending as if close personal contact doesn't change the situation. This is absurd. Com'on, let's have some higher standards in our conversation than this.

Click to expand...

I'm not pretending it doesn't change the situation. I'm merely stating it's not the defining characteristic of it. Or it shouldn't be. But it does for you. You're presenting a binary model of human interaction that revolves around your personal involvement with the parties involved. There are not very kind words for people who define their social interactions and responses that way. There's also clinical words for such people.

Alexander Kalinowski said:

Do you understand that? And do you understand why it's so important to give up on personal revenge? Because being part of a lynch mob feels gooood. It makes you feel both righteous and powerful. And you know what? Lynch mobs always have good reasons. They always just protect the innocent and helpless from the wicked.

Click to expand...

What I understand is the fact that the leap to "NOT BUYING A RAPIST'S BOOKS AND TAKING AWAY HIS AWARD IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO LYNCH MOBS" is all sorts of a ed up position to take.

At this point, I'm beginning to question whether you are actually a real person or an AI chatbot programmed to emulate ethics by someone who made the program read every SAW script.

billd91 said:

Well, since Zak hasn't been accused of child molestation, doesn't seem at all contrite about his behavior so it doesn't appear any rehabilitation has happened, and we aren't beating the bastard bloody... I'm having a hard time seeing exactly how excoriating someone online and recommending that his ENnies be rescinded is really all that comparable.

That said, if someone actually pays their penalties and tries to make amends, I extend them some goodwill. I want to believe people can improve themselves and will give them a chance to do so. That puts the ball right in Zak's court, but I expect he'll squander any opportunity for redemption.

Click to expand...

That's good. Because I suspect some people would even want to punish felons who have served their time. As to the first point, it's a matter of principle: does stripping of awards serve any other purpose than punishment? If that is the main purpose, it is punishment by private citizens, outside of court, before conviction in court. It's just not physical. It's social, perhaps economical, punishment. But it's punishment.

It's legal, sure, but how does this not undermine the spirit of our court systems? Don't we now have to reduce sentencing terms because we need to figure in the punishment by private citizens that convicted felons already have to pay? And that ignores that punishment by private citizens is more likely to end in miscarriage of justice than regular trials.

Alexander Kalinowski said:

As to the first point, it's a matter of principle: does stripping of awards serve any other purpose than punishment?

Click to expand...

It protects the integrity of the award by not being associated with the perpetrator.

It's legal, sure, but how does this not undermine the spirit of our court systems?

Click to expand...

You mean the same system that routinely imprisons and executes innocent people?

No, not really.