What the heck is going on with the professional RPG industry in regards to Zak S?

[Umbran]

Frank Mentzer raped someone?

He has been accused of harassment, to the point where Luke Gygax took him off the Guest of Honor list for GaryCon 2019.

https://garycon.com/blog/2019/02/18/harbinger-unheeded/

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

He has been accused of harassment, to the point where Luke Gygax took him off the Guest of Honor list for GaryCon 2019.

https://garycon.com/blog/2019/02/18/harbinger-unheeded/

I know, I was in Frank's game that got cancelled and was planning on going to his Frankenparty. But calling someone rapey is way beyond lecherous or even harrassing behavior.

Note: I don't know Frank personally, but throwing rape around casually is a bit much.

 

[Hussar]

The level of hyperbole does not help the conversation:

I am scared, deeply and actually scared, by how much we seem to be trying to reinvent the struggle session and a bunch of other ugly things.

I actually had to google that term. Hadn't run across that one.

But, comparing government controlled public torture for the purpose of removing political enemies to something like the #MeToo movement is so unbelievably blind it's bordering on deliberate.

Good grief, the Chinese #MeToo movement just changed the Chinese laws THIS YEAR to include a legal definition of sexual harassment. China will have it's FIRST civil sexual harassment case in history, THIS YEAR.

And, while I realize that EN World is supposed to be apolitical, these are important issues. And, it's helpful, I believe, to spread the word among the hobby. Particularly considering the history of our hobby as a primarily male dominated one whose demographics are changing pretty rapidly.

 

[MGibster]

I'm all for a safe and inclusive hobby. Everybody should feel comfortable going to a convention or a game store free from any concern that they might be harassed. We're all there to have fun, right? It's unfortunate that people were more tolerate of terrible behavior in previous years but we can be thankful that attitude is changing. Including Zak S. in the credits sends a clear message: We endorse his behavior and we're proud to stand by him. That is not a message anyone should want to communicate to others.

 

[Hussar]

I'm all for a safe and inclusive hobby. Everybody should feel comfortable going to a convention or a game store free from any concern that they might be harassed. We're all there to have fun, right? It's unfortunate that people were more tolerate of terrible behavior in previous years but we can be thankful that attitude is changing. Including Zak S. in the credits sends a clear message: We endorse his behavior and we're proud to stand by him. That is not a message anyone should want to communicate to others.

I'm not sure I'd go that far as to say we endorse his behavior.

But, removing the credits does say that we don't.

 

[Gradine]

In short, I don't agree with any of you and I find pretty much all this talk from just about everyone embarrassing, dangerous, and decidedly anti-social.

Seriously? I'm supposed to be, what, embarrassed? Are you upset that our conversation about how to handle this very real and serious issue within our hobby of sheltering and supporting serial abusers, harassers, assaulters (oh I'm sorry, I meant "politics") is getting in the way of your conversations about very important, very serious "game mechanics and the art and science of RPGs?"

Frankly, your holier-than-thou attitude and condescension is completely at odds with not only your constant unwillingness to confront social, community problems as an actual community, but your active antipathy towards such actions. You, as always, live your life like we're in some sort of fantasy world, where bad actors act in a complete vacuum because of their singular personal demons and not because of any broader cultural factors, such as, oh I don't know, the encouragement that comes from a complete and utter lack of societal pressure to change their violent behaviors.

Look, no problem has never, ever, been solved by everyone sort of coughing and shuffling their feet and saying "well that isn't my problem." You say "I think real progress and change is made one person at a time, through personal and meaningful relationships." which is a beautiful statement and is possible, but it's a follow up to "I don't think taking a stand is going to make abusers less likely to be abusive" which is not only false but insidious and dangerous. You not only actively take the stance against addressing communal problems communally, you're now attempting to shame and belittle those who try to find solutions. Never mind that you disagree with the solutions being proposed; I can get that. But you're saying here that it's wrong to even try. I hesitate to use the phrase, because its origins have implications that are quite a bit more far-reaching than even the indisputably vile acts of violence we're talking about in this thread, but this is the banality of evil. "Nothing to see here. Nothing we can do. Just keep your heads down. Talk about the weather." And even beyond that, you actively interject to try to shame others. You can't just sit on the sidelines; you have to actively become a part of the problem. This is "embarrassing, dangerous, and decidedly anti-social."

I mean, it's literally anti-social; in that it's actively arguing against social action.

We all get that you have a pathological aversion to "virtue signalling", as if it weren't possible for someone to have sincerely held beliefs and argue passionately for them... but... it is actually okay to have sincerely held beliefs and argue passionately for them. There doesn't have to be some ulterior, selfish motive behind it (maybe I should rethink my stance about your perfect fantasy world; it's certainly filled with a lot of insincere hypocrites now that I think about it). But I'm serious. You can't wade into a tense and emotional argument assuming that everyone (or even most people) that disagrees with you aren't being serious, but are instead just trying to earn internet brownie points. That's intellectual dishonesty, and it doesn't become you.

Look, if you don't like the solutions to the problem that we're posing, pose better ones (other than, you know, continuing to turn a blind eye and let all of this awful behavior resolve itself privately, because that's worked so well in the past). And if you don't believe there's a problem, well, maybe I'll need to revisit that "fantasy world" theory one more time. But fine, we can argue that and demonstrate and depth and scope of the problem if need be.

But don't come in here on your high horse and pooh-pooh people for recognizing the problem and trying to do something about it. Yes, it the immediate aftermath of these things there's often a lot more anger and hurt than palpable solutions, I feel that. I also think it's a necessary step. These threads just never seem to get past that step before getting de-railed by concern trolls and anti-feminist ideologues and getting shut down as a result. I recognize the role I have often played in that, and recognize that I could be doing better. If I am embarrassed about anything, it is that.

You are demonstrably wrong about basically everything here. Social pressure leads to social change, and a place where harassers and abusers are more afraid to harass and abuse is a good thing. If you disagree with that, you are wrong. I'm sorry, but you just are. Now, you can either help us and be part of building a better solution to this (one that might even be much more palatable to your own sensibilities, even!) or you can stop... whatever this is supposed to be. What do the kids call it... poop-posting? No, that doesn't sound right. Well, whatever it's called, stop it.

 

[pemerton]

is it a common practice for consultants to receive credit in a book??

The PHB is not a scholarly work governed by standards of academic ethics; and I very much doubt that the sort of work the "consultants" did on the PHB generates entitlements to be acknowledged under "moral rights" law. (I'm not even sure if the US has moral rights laws.)

But it is common for companies to try and promote their products. And in the case of a personality-driven consumer market like RPGing, naming prominent personalities as "consultants" is a marketing technique.

I think it may be that they just don't want the (possible??) headache of having D&D associated in general with any of the consultants anymore, probably with the Zak S. stuff being a catalyst for the move.

<snip>

they didn't just remove Zak S. and RPG Pundit... they removed all of the consultants including Kenneth Hite, Kevin Kulp, Vincent Venturella & Robin Laws...none of whom I would classify as old school or anti-new school.

I think it's fairly obvious both why the consultants paragraph has come out - and that's clearly not related to Kenneth Hite, Robin Laws et al - and I also think it's fairly obvious why they're doing it simply by deleting the paragraph in question.

I think it may be a way to avoid any legal entanglements... this way they can just claim they are no longer giving consultant credits in their book moving forward as opposed to specific reasons for specific consultants being removed... which could get messy.

I don't think it's to avoid any legal entanglements. I very much doubt that there are any legal entanglements that relate to that paragraph. They could remove one name or all and would not have to provide "specific reasons" except in the context of litigation.

I think they're doing it because that's an easy way to do it and doesn't leave any lingering lightning rods for the Zak S "controversy".

This is what George Orwell called becoming an "unperson". It's not enough for WotC to cut ties with him going forward. They have to go back in time and erase all record of his involvement, so they get to pretend he was never a part of their playtest team.

Even if Zak is brought into court and found guilty of abuse or harassment, why can't wizards simply say "yes we worked with him, but that was before we knew what was going on." Why does stripping him of credit for his contributions need to be part of his social punishment?

These questions answer themselves, don't they? You don't market your products by associating them with unpopular people. Zak S's level of popularity has suddenly and pretty dramatically changed, and so WotC is changing the marketing material in the PHB.

This is where I think WotC's response may be a bit on the excessive side. I have grave misgivings about a corporation erasing someone's credit - whether that person is a toad or not - without also removing the impact they've had on the product.

This is where I go back go back to the point that it's marketing.

 

[Ghostwind]

* It is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG for WotC to remove Zak's credits from the products he consulted on, and I've told them so directly, not that they listen to a nobody like me. No matter how repugnant a person is or how badly you want to distance yourself from them for PR reasons, retroactively un-crediting a contributor is the same thing as stealing their work and claiming it for your own. It is NOT OKAY and as a professional maker-upper-of-stuff I strongly feel Wizards should NOT do it.

Your opinion. There are legions of us who feel is it more than appropriate and are waiting to see if EN World takes the next step to strip him of his Ennies. Why should someone who is a serial abuser and rapist like Zak be allowed to capitalize on using his awards as a means of getting employment in the future? The answer: He shouldn't ever again.

* Finally, remember that mention I made about Zak of Zak hating the same people that I did from '14-'16? Well it turns out, those people are also harboring ing child rapists, and the story is getting completely lost in the face of Sabbathgate and Mentzergate. Insufferable jerkass Matt McFarland (formerly BlackHat_Matt on RPG.net) is also literally a CHILD RAPIST, and the list of allegations against him is still growing but is already a disgusting litany of creepery. His wife, Michelle Lyons-McFarland, received reports of her husband's inappropriate behavior in her official capacity and proceeded to cover for him.

I know Michelle. Have known her for a very long time before she even met Matt. Her first first husband was a piece of work and gaslighted her. Something to keep in mind when you are quick to condemn her. Matt may very well be abusing her too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not wanting to do business with someone due to their behaviour is fair enough. Idk who the guy is but seems to be a pattern in the allegations.

Removing credits not so much imho.

 

[Morrus]

Your opinion. There are legions of us who feel is it more than appropriate and are waiting to see if EN World takes the next step to strip him of his Ennies.

EN World (and I) are not connected to the ENnies any more, and I don't have any insight into what they'll decide. I do know they announced that something was forthcoming.