Zak Smith is suing his accusers

[Bardic Dave]

In both cases, there WERE a few.

Every satanist I've known (about a dozen) played D&D in high school and/or college. Not all of them did so during the height of the "satanic panic"... because they weren't old enough... but there were Satan-worshippers playing D&D in the period.

And many communist agents were convicted ... including the Rosenbergs.¹

You chose your exemplars poorly.

¹: https://fas.org/sgp/library/spies.pdf

Dude, there are "satan worshippers" (real people who are a member of a "church" of skeptical atheists that don't actually believe in the devil) and there are "satan worshippers" (fictional boogeymen that congregate to drink the blood of virgins at midnight). Real life members of the satanic church have nothing to do with secret blood orgies or human sacrifice—kinda like how real life people with socialist leanings are not secret agents of the Soviet Union. You're drawing a false equivalence here.

 

[BookBarbarian]

So what did we learn here today?

That some really decent folks here and elsewhere are willing to help a person in need.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think this thread was doomed from the start, because of who it is. The war between Zak and the unnamed other site (and many posters there who also post here) goes back to at least 2001 that I know of. Probably earlier. for the past 20 years, people either hate him with a passion, or they defend him tooth and nail. so I think there is a lot of confirmation bias here. Those that hate him, upon hearing accusations, will automatically convict him with malice. It feels good to hear that someone you hate might do down in flames. And the more flames, the better. As someone who had a bit of a rift with him a decade or so ago, I feel those same feelings. But we have to recognize confirmation bias when we see it.

 

[Raunalyn]

We are, as a society, too quick to believe accusations/allegations without reviewing all of the evidence. Today, too many people are able to point the finger at someone, accuse them of doing something atrocious with little or no evidence, and have that person's livelihood damaged permanently by that allegation. We need to be more careful and cognizant of this before we jump to judgement. There is a reason why most courts are built upon the presumption of innocence.

That being said; I am not saying that Zak is innocent. It is a well known tactic of people who are likely guilty of said atrocious behavior to sue the accuser(s) of slander/libel in an attempt to silence them. I don't know the whole story, though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this thread was doomed from the start, because of who it is. The war between Zak and the unnamed other site (and many posters there who also post here) goes back to at least 2001 that I know of. Probably earlier. for the past 20 years, people either hate him with a passion, or they defend him tooth and nail. so I think there is a lot of confirmation bias here. Those that hate him, upon hearing accusations, will automatically convict him with malice. It feels good to hear that someone you hate might do down in flames. And the more flames, the better. As someone who had a bit of a rift with him a decade or so ago, I feel those same feelings. But we have to recognize confirmation bias when we see it.

I was blissfully ignorant of all of this until maybe a year ago or so. I only became aware of Zak Smith a couple years ago, when I came across the Maze of the Blue Medusa. I thought it was a great product....innovative, evocative, simple to use....and I started following his work. Vornheim and Red and Pleasant Land were also works of his that impressed me.

Without knowing of the larger issues, I noticed that when I would mention his work in online conversations, sometimes people would react in a way I thought was odd. I chalked it up to online interactions lacking nuance and being easily misconstrued.

Obviously, there was more to it. When I found out about this, I looked into it a bit. It doesn't take a lot of digging to find enough information to take a stance on the guy. So that's what I did....I won't buy any more of his work, and I'm not going to use the materials of his that I have.

I mean.....it's easy to ignore all the evidence and call for impartiality when there's no risk to us personally. But what if Zak showed up at your house on Christmas because he's dating your sister?

Who in their right mind would remain impartial in that case? I don't think anyone would. We'd all act on what we know.....we'd warn our sister in some way, even if we did so with the caveat "I don't know for sure this is 100% true, but....."

Simple as that.

 

[Beleriphon]

So, a few observations.

It is my understanding that this lawsuit was filed in Canada, not the United States. Typical defamation forum shopping. I do not know enough about Canadian law to opine on the issue much, other than to say that Canadian law is much more plaintiff-friendly in defamation cases; from what I generally understand, Canada is considered one of the least speech-protective jurisdictions of the major commonlaw countries. The only reason you don't normally see this type of forum shopping by Americans is because you can't generally collect on a Canadian defamation judgement in America without re-proving it (SPEECH Act).

.......

So, with that said, why worry about defamation lawsuits in America?

Well, the US follows the American rule- that means that, absent a contract or statutory provision, each side pays their own attorney's fees. So if there is a power or wealth imbalance between parties, one party can simply hammer the other side - even if they lose, it might be worth it to them to inflict pain. After all, if both sides have to pay, say, 100k in attorney's fees, and one side has a billion dollars, and the other side makes 50k a year ....

So the gist of it is that powerful people can still use defamation law to harass less powerful people. They go in knowing that even if they lose, they win.

That's interesting, in that there's a distinct dis-incentive for filing suit in Canada: if you lose you pay the other side's fees up to a point.

Truth is still a defense, there's no really logical reason to file suit in Canada either if all of the parties are in the USA. The only reason is might happen is if a party involved initially had the reports made via a Canadian news agency. The CBC has been sued, and won, on the basis that they made a good faith effort to validate facts before publishing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I was blissfully ignorant of all of this until maybe a year ago or so. I only became aware of Zak Smith a couple years ago, when I came across the Maze of the Blue Medusa. I thought it was a great product....innovative, evocative, simple to use....and I started following his work. Vornheim and Red and Pleasant Land were also works of his that impressed me.

Without knowing of the larger issues, I noticed that when I would mention his work in online conversations, sometimes people would react in a way I thought was odd. I chalked it up to online interactions lacking nuance and being easily misconstrued.

Obviously, there was more to it. When I found out about this, I looked into it a bit. It doesn't take a lot of digging to find enough information to take a stance on the guy. So that's what I did....I won't buy any more of his work, and I'm not going to use the materials of his that I have.

I mean.....it's easy to ignore all the evidence and call for impartiality when there's no risk to us personally. But what if Zak showed up at your house on Christmas because he's dating your sister?

Who in their right mind would remain impartial in that case? I don't think anyone would. We'd all act on what we know.....we'd warn our sister in some way, even if we did so with the caveat "I don't know for sure this is 100% true, but....."

Simple as that.

I don't disagree. And like I said, I had a bit of a riff about a decade or so ago. Enough for me to make my own opinions. I'll just say this. I find it entirely believable that these allegations might be true (many of the red flags are there: his attitude, Mandy being in a vulnerable and dependent state due to her condition (abusers often look for people like that), etc). But I think he still should be afforded the opportunity to take proper legal recourse, because it's not unheard of that people were sure someone did something, only to find out they didn't. And even if a person is overall horrible, that doesn't mean they are guilty of every crime. None of us were there. None of us truly know.

 

[Umbran]

And many communist agents were convicted ... including the Rosenbergs.¹

With respect - McCarthy's investigations found nobody guilty of anything.

 

[Bohandas]

Dude, there are "satan worshippers" (real people who are a member of a "church" of skeptical atheists that don't actually believe in the devil) and there are "satan worshippers" (fictional boogeymen that congregate to drink the blood of virgins at midnight). Real life members of the satanic church have nothing to do with secret blood orgies or human sacrifice

What about David Berkowitz

 

[Bardic Dave]

What about David Berkowitz

Did David Berkowitz play D&D?

Edit: But ok. There are deranged and depraved people out there who will commit heinous crimes, ostensibly in the name of satan. I don't think that really changes my point: just because a few "satanists" may have played D&D, that doesn't lend any credence to the satanic panic. David Berkowitz doesn't really have anything to do with it.