RPG Writer Zak S Accused Of Abusive Behaviour

Alexander Kalinowski said:

If you don't take justice into your own hands, you're an enabler?

Click to expand...

"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people."

Click to expand...

“It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, "Wait on time.”

Click to expand...

A common motif raised in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. is about how the silence and idleness of nominally good people enables the persistence of social evils, hindering the realization of justice.

So you need to punish Zak Smith over allegations that you consider credible? Let's say he was convicted of some of the charges made. Then he would have to pay the price that society has agreed upon that should be paid in such cases, right? Prison time, most likely. Do you think private citizens should ADD to that agreed upon price by adding economic and social sanctions on top of that? Would that imply that the official sanctions of sexual harrassment are too low to be satisfactory? Or do we engage in personal justice because it makes us feel good and powerful?

Do you understand why personal sanctions could be interpreted as vigilantism? "Sure, he got convicted and served his time but let's beat the dude bloody nonetheless!" Again, I've got no stakes with Mr. Smith, i hardly know him and we parted ways on unfriendly terms. But do you see where I am getting at and why it could be interpreted as vigilantism? It's not your nor anyone else's place to punish Mr. Smith in our western democracies. Somehow this understanding got lost along the way.

And let's be clear: stripping away awards does not serve the purpose of protecting anyone. Its purpose is to punish. Punishing feels good.

Doesn't it?

Click to expand...

No, dear Eliphaz, I do not see what you are getting at. You offer only the sound of your own windy words and confuse your verbosity for wisdom.

While some may delight in the punishment of a foe, I have found that most punishment is accompanied by various senses of melancholy, pity, remorse, regret, and disappointment. It is not about feeling a need for punishment (or the feeling thereof) but about individuals and collective bodies taking an ethical stand in accordance with their principles, making those principles known through their words and actions, and making known what unethical behaviors they will not tolerate in others. Your notion that wrong-doing can only be resolved in the realm of legal criminal justice only illustrates just how woefully deficient your notion of justice is. But let's be transparent here, this whole "let the courts decide" rhetoric is meant to derail and silence conversation.

Alexander Kalinowski said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you not understand how you are gaslighting here?

Alexander Kalinowski said:

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.

Click to expand...

For someone who claims not to care either way, it amazes me how you have spent an exorbitant amount of time and effort in your arguments to provide him recourse and cushion him from criticism. He is not being lynched. He is not being asked to serve time in prison. The discussion is about revoking his Ennies, which makes your argument all the more absurd to the point of ridicule. Because yes, [MENTION=6931283]Alexander Kalinowski[/MENTION], as you seem to ignore, such practices are common to the point of banality in even the most lauded of democratic societies. This sort of action is not the exceedingly harsh or cruel and unusual punishment that you imagine. If it were, then we would see such things condemned far more frequently than they are. But society often lauds when non-governmental bodies show a commitment to justice.

Alexander Kalinowski said:

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.

Click to expand...

It does nothing to undermine the spirit of the court system. People have the right to freely associate (or NOT associate) and that applies to honors they extend, such as ENnie awards. If Roman Polanski, despite his artistry, can be booted out of the Academy, Zak can have his Ennie revoked.

billd91 said:

If Roman Polanski, despite his artistry, can be booted out of the Academy, Zak can have his Ennie revoked.

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

He is not being lynched. He is not being asked to serve time in prison. The discussion is about revoking his Ennies...

Click to expand...

And he's not even being censored. ENnies or no, he can go on publishing what he wants with whomever will work with him, and sell his products on whatever platform will have him, and reach his audience through whatever media he can afford or wrangle. No one is preventing him from expressing himself, artistically or personally.

The ENnies are a fan-based industry award, a semi-professional accolade. Well, he has abused, harassed, and bullied people in the industry and vocal gamers. Former associates' best defense of him has been, "Well, he's an a**hole, but he's not that bad," but are now speaking out against him, going so far as to edit old posts defending him, and breaking professional ties. People who know him, who have worked with him on projects over years, believe Mandy Morbid and others, and are publicly decrying him, apologizing for not seeing it or not doing more about it. Whether you do or do not believe it yourself, people working within the industry do, and that's going to impact product development in the future.

As consumers, and as a community of hobby enthusiasts, we absolutely get to determine whom we support and why. Exactly as the Basebell Hall of Fame did with Pete Rose, and as the Academy did with Roman Polanski. Zak S has demonstrated time and again, publicly and unequivocally, that he is unprofessional to his peers, demeaning to his detractors, dangerous to work with, and with absolutely so sense of remorse or concern that his behaviors are problematic. If we continue to endorse him with awards - and with purchases - we affirmatively state that any of this behavior is acceptable IN OUR INDUSTRY. Just as such activity would get him fired from most jobs, we can "fire him" here.

The only recourse we have as a community to restrict, condemn, and discourage Zak S and people like him is to deny our support. Revoke any existing awards, deny future awards. Don't review - don't even comment on - his products. ENWorld can be a powerful voice in encouraging meaningful change that makes gamers and game companies inclusive, safe, and diverse. If it wants to be. If it values those things.

The ENnies are a reflection of what we believe is the best in gaming. If Zak S is considered some of the best, it doesn't say much about us. We can do, and have, better.

Aldarc said:

A common motif raised in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. is about how the silence and idleness of nominally good people enables the persistence of social evils, hindering the realization of justice.

Click to expand...

Exactly! We need to stand up against social evil and say, No more! No more mob justice!

Shasarak said:

Exactly! We need to stand up against social evil and say, No more! No more mob justice!

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Because that's what a man known for rallying people into boycots (among other things) to make a social statement meant.

I mean, I'm hoping you were trying to do something here and that this isn't what you actually think MLK meant, but either way ...

billd91 said:

It does nothing to undermine the spirit of the court system. People have the right to freely associate (or NOT associate) and that applies to honors they extend, such as ENnie awards. If Roman Polanski, despite his artistry, can be booted out of the Academy, Zak can have his Ennie revoked.

Click to expand...

To be honest the only reason for stripping someone of their Ennie award would be if they plagiarized their work.

Immortal Sun said:

Oh boy, we're already into the "this needs to be taken to court and decided in court and evidence presented" part of the denial train.

Click to expand...

The section you put in quotes sounds like it would be fully appropriate in this case.
This is not "denial train" this is "the relationships sound THAT bad to have been in". Professional fact-finders will do better making the judgement (criminal act / civil liability / not actionable) than any of us on an Internet board will.

S'mon said:

I don't think public-vote awards should be rescinded, no matter how scuzzy the person. If Vox Day or Varg Vikernes wins an ENnie, it should stand IMO. It says nothing about their moral character.

As for the OP, I feel sorry for Mandy, and I expect she had good reasons for posting when she did. I appreciate that she feels bad about having facilitated the abuse of others. I don't plan to buy any more of Zak's stuff.

Click to expand...

Now this I do disagree with.

If a group awards an industry award, does that not also come with some sort of community standards assumption? That the person who won the award isn't a serial rapist or abuser seems a pretty low bar. And, the brand of En World suffers by association as well, remember. They are the ones who gave an award, and thus accolades, to someone who is apparently not someone we would normally want associated with the hobby.

Taking awards away from such people sends a clear message that the community will not tolerate such behavior.

Shasarak said:

To be honest the only reason for stripping someone of their Ennie award would be if they plagiarized their work.

Click to expand...

When you've got lower standards than the NCAA you've got problems.