RPG Writer Zak S Accused Of Abusive Behaviour

RPG writer Zak S (aka Zak Smith, Zak Sabbath) has been accused by multiple women of abusive behaviour in a public Facebook post by his ex-partner, and two other women.

Photo from Wikipedia​

Zak Smith appeared in the video series I Hit It With My Axe, and is known for the Playing D&D With Porn Stars blog. He has also written several RPG books, most recently for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, consulted on the D&D 5th Edition Player's Handbook, has won multiple ENnies, and recently worked for White Wolf. As yet, he hasn't made any public response to the accusations.

Since then, another ex-partner of Zak Smith, Vivka Grey, has publicly come forward with a further account of his conduct.

This isn't the first time that Zak Smith has been accused of inappropriate behaviour (language warning in that link). The Facebook post, which was posted overnight, has been shared widely on social media, and takes the form of an open letter (linked above; it makes for unpleasant reading, so please be aware of that if you choose to read it).

The industry has been reacting to the news. Amongst many others:

• DriveThruRPG has stated that it will sell no future works by Zak Smith.
• Veteran author Ken Hite has announced that he will not work with or share credits with Zak Smith again.
• The Gauntlet blog and podcast will no longer cover Zak S or his publications, or attend conventions that he is permitted at.
• WotC's Mike Mearls has noted that they have not engaged with Zak S since he worked for them as a consultant on 5E, although a previous statement from him in 2014 takes a different stance. However, D&D Beyond has now removed all the consultant credits (not just Zak S) from its online version of the book.
• UPDATE - WotC has now made a longer statement and will be removing Zak S from the credits of future printings of the Player's Handbook.
• Gen Con has tweeted a brief statement which says it has investigated, but the results are confidential. It has bene stated by various industry insiders that Zak S has, in fact, been banned from Gen Con, but the convention isn't saying so publicly.

I believe Mandy, Jennifer, Hannah, and Vivka. It must be terrifying to come forward like this. They have been put through horrible ordeals. I will not cover Zak’s work on this site, in my podcast, or elsewhere, and will not provide him with any kind of platform.

 

[Rygar]

Oh look...ENWorld took something posted to a social media site, which doesn't seem to have law enforcement involvment to show whether or not it's accurate, posted it as news, and started a giant politics thread even though the site claims to have a "No Politics" rule.

One of these days someone's going to sue the bejeesus out of the site owners for their "News" articles.

 

[Saracenus]

This! Yes, This! As a gaming/community organizer I cannot separate creative content from its creator because if I laud the content and DO NOT address the behavior I am tacitly endorsing/enabling their behavior.

Nothing kills a community (any community) quicker than allowing toxic people to continue to operate in those spaces. The very people you want there, the people you want to encourage to participate there will start to leave. The death spiral of a community unwilling to hold it members to community standards is brutal.

If these accusations were happening in a vacuum I would be more inclined to hold my judgement and see what came of them, but they have not. There has been long documented proof that Zack S. behavior is toxic and contrary to the stated rules of this site (and many others). So, the question is not weather Zack S. should be stripped of his awards here, the real question is why has it taken so damn long to even become a question.

The word at the fulcrum of this awards back-and-forth has become "merit:" "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward."

Like a lot of words, "merit," "good," and "worthy" are subjective. Yunru argues "merit" is a value independent of authorship, others disagree. Neither can be inherently right or wrong. But the dependent clause there is the kicker, especially "reward."

I'm reminded of Pete Rose (an older-generation major league baseball player, for those of a certain age or not of a certain country). Some feel his outstanding record warrants his inclusion in the Basebell Hall of Fame, others feel his behavior off the field (namely betting on baseball - while a player and manager) sullied the good name of the sport and he should remain disqualified. Depends on where your values lie, and what sort of message one wants to send. The Hall of Fame concluded that Rose's behavior was contrary to the spirit of the game, and for this he was not eligible for the rewards of membership. He'll continue to hold his records until they're broken, and no one disputes his expertise or accomplishments, but he will not be found in Cooperstown (unless he's visiting) because, as determined by the Hall of Fame, accomplishment is not the sole determiner when celebrating the best baseball has to offer. Had his gambling been limited to horses or poker, it wouldn't have been an issue; but betting on the sport (and on his team) while contributing to the sport is at best problematic, and at worst cheating: hence the ban.

It has been well documented for the past several years that Zak S has engaged in prolonged campaigns of bullying and harassment of gamers, content creators, and industry professionals, both personally and through directed proxies. He has even impersonated at least one industry professional online in an effort to discredit them. Even if you choose to ignore the many claims against him of misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia, even if you dismiss the credible statements of victims of his personal non-gaming abuse and harassment... the fact that he has and continues to undermine the diversity and creative stable of the industry, and to sully the image of our hobby as an inclusive, welcoming community, should be enough to convince you that he should not be rewarded for his behavior, not by us. It's a black mark on the industry that we continue to say, "It doesn't matter how you treat my fellow gamers or publishers, or how negatively you impact the creative potential of others in my hobby, just write something I like and it'll be okay."

The gaming hobby and industry benefits, as most things do, from diversity, inclusion, and choice. We won't all agree on, well, pretty much anything, evidenced here. But all should be welcome - and safe - across demographics. To make that possible, the gaming community and content providers must abide by the Popper Paradox: to be tolerant, it must be intolerant of intolerance. Zak S and people like him are cancerous: turning off existing and potential gamers, rattling creators, limiting diversity, and generating divisiveness not because of any artistry, but because of his actions and choices IRL. The recent statement by The Gauntlet is a decisive and - to the point that gaming should be welcoming and safe - positive step in this direction.

The ENnies have an opportunity to say with force that behaviors contrary to the spirit of gaming can be neither rewarded nor encouraged, that part of being the "best" of anything in gaming is in improving and growing the hobby for all current and future gamers, that -isms and -phobias and harassment and bullying aren't virtues to celebrate or ignore, and will not be sanctioned or rewarded. We can encourage creative excellence AND discourage abhorrent behaviors; these are not mutually exclusive.

 

[kenmarable]

This is you supporting fake news:

You said I was spreading it. Quote that. I’ll wait.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

started a giant politics thread even though the site claims to have a "No Politics" rule.

Where, exactly, is the politics?

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Anyway all I'm doing is not buying his stuff going forward (I only have Vornheim). I probably wouldn't have bought his stuff anyway due to him having demonstrably been a jerk on other occasions.
I don't need criminal standard of proof to make that decision.

I'm not arguing against you (not) doing that - it's your prerogative entriely and that's fine. Personal freedom and all that.

I don't think I have ever bought anything by him. But I wouldn't rule it out now. I wouldn't even rule it out if he was convicted of any charges. Here's why: it's not my job to punish anyone for any wrong they have done. We have courts for that. (Granted, I'd probably see it differently if I knew any victim personally and believed them but that's another thing.)

Why do I have to avenge some alleged misdeed that some random person on the other side of the globe did to another person? (By not buying anything from that person.) I thought the courts system existed so that I don't have to engage in vigilantism myself? So that I don't have to even worry about punishing other people. This is very inconvenient.

 

[Shasarak]

You said I was spreading it. Quote that. I’ll wait.

So now you want to care about fake news?

 

[Aldarc]

I am not worried about Zak S's reputation, I am worried about people who think that it is somehow ok to imagine fake situations and compare them to real life tragedies.

It is just fake news and people like you are responsible for spreading it.

Stop being part of the problem.

You're gaslighting (again).

 

[kenmarable]

So now you want to care about fake news?

So, that’s a no, then. That’s what I thought.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I wouldn't even rule it out if he was convicted of any charges. Here's why: it's not my job to punish anyone for any wrong they have done. We have courts for that.

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.

I'm not at all surprised this escapes you.

(Granted, I'd probably see it differently if I knew any victim personally and believed them but that's another thing.)

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.

 

[Shasarak]

Then why were you asking for more that we should be aware of? Just imagine them if you want.

And I'm wondering what the line is between accusing someone of harassing Zak for saying he should have his awards taken away, then taking issue with even hypothetical points they make, and (literally) showing sympathy for Zak. It's looking awfully blurry when someone works so hard to defend Zak's awards.

Alright here we go.

Youre welcome.

Now it is time for you to quote me defending Zak S.