We've recently had a blog post with new allegations against Zak S (a.k.a Zak Zabbath a.k.a Zak Smith). I'm not surprised to see a new round of allegations against him. This isn't the first time he's weathered such accusations. Although unlike some previous allegations this one seems to have no evidence (which is fair enough. Someone shouldn't have to be a forensic scientist to alert people of the way they've been treated).
However supported only by an allegation the RPG industry has acted swiftly and with vengeance. The biggest seller of RPG products is refusing to carry Zak's work. And WotC have now removed the credit Zak had from the 5e PHB.
Are we as consumers okay at the professional RPG industry refusing to do business with someone over a mere allegation? Because I can see this quickly leading to some innocent people hurt sooner or later.
"Mere allegations" assumes that the FOUR people who have spoken up against Zak are liars and all part of some shadowy organized and coordinated conspiracy-campaign that exists solely smear Zak.
Again, one of the people speaking out was Zak's longtime partner, who was also frequently used as a shield. And who alleges physical and psychological abuse:
https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252blog
And then there is also this follow-up accusation:
https://www.facebook.com/VivkaCriesWolf/posts/2478145012257909
So these aren't just accusation. That is evidence. Eye witness testimony and victim statements.
What more do you need?
If they are acting on more than the allegation, and are in fact reacting to known behaviour of Zak S or so strongly suspected behaviour that they feel confident in their current reaction: What the heck was the RPG industry doing up until now? If Zak S is so bad that he should have every mention of him removed from the RPG industry, why didn't they do something before now? I certainly wasn't surprised to see the most recent allegation. So why the heck are they pretending to be surprised? And if they didn't have any suspicions, why are they taking such drastic action against someone without any legal proceedings occurring?
Here's the thing: people aren't surprised. I wasn't. Many others weren't either. It was well known that Zak was a pretty horrible and abusive person. That's why there was a walk-out of the 2014 ENnies. That's why people protested his inclusion in the credits of the PHB. That's why WotC hasn't worked with him since.
But there was always enough room to deny. For people to tell themselves that he was just being a troll online, but wasn't a bad person. Or that he wasn't really targeting people online, and his victims were just feigning outrage or thin skinned.
Until, finally, the sexual assault accusations by his girlfriends surfaced. And that was enough to convince *most* people that his online behavior wasn't just as masque. That he wasn't just a troll online. That he was a serial abuser and toxic individual.
If Ed Greenwood or Mike Mearls get similar allegations made against them, will they be treated the same as Zak S? And if not, then why not?
Here's the thing... if people have a horrible reputation for being a despicable toxic individual, then accusations against them have a lot of weight. People are quick to believe the accusations against Zak because he had a terrible reputation online.
If someone has a reputation for being a kind gentleman and a positive voice and a single person accuses them, then that stands out as uncharacteristic. People might be more willing to listen to the accused and question a denial.
Mike Mearls has a so-so reputation, so it wouldn't surprise many who want to believe the worst of him. (Especially after his behaviour in the early ZS controversies of 2014.)
Ed Greenwood is a dirty old man, so if it came out he was handsy as well, no one would be surprised.
But if, say, Jeremy Crawford was accused of assault, people might stop and want to hear his side. There's more room for doubt. As always, some people would believe the worst, and some would give him the benefit of the doubt. But with no evidence, a single accusation would not be enough to tarnish his reputation. Because his reputation is solid.
But let's play the numbers game.
According to the FBI 2% of sexual assault accusations are false.
Meanwhile, only 34.8% of rapes are reported. (That would be 2% of that 34.8%). That means 65.2% of rapes are unreported, in large part because women are discouraged from naming names and afraid they will not be believed.
We, as a society, are apparently okay to let 65.2% of women not even REPORT the fact they were raped, because it
might damage the reputation of the 2% of men who are falsely accused. We're willing to let tens of thousands of actual rapists go free and be allowed to rape more women just to avoid damaging the
ing reputation of a few hundred men.
