Quote from: Razor 007;1076306FWIW, I checked my 5E PHB, and WOTC has been unable to remove the names of the contributors.

I like hardback books, for the win!!!

So far. But Zak at least will be gone from the next print run according to the official WOTC announcement. Possibly all the contributor names as WOTC removed them sometime last year from the Basic PDF.

Which still brings up the question of why the removal.

This was still in the 2015 v.03 which I believe had not changed as of 2015. .  

QuoteAdditional consultation provided by  Jeff Grubb, Kenneth Hite, Kevin Kulp, Robin Laws,  S. John Ross, the RPGPundit, Vincent Venturella, and Zak S.

Not in the 2018 v1.0

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076350Zak. S is a piece of crap. He deserves the drummiing out of the business he earned. But I will never agree with throwing innocent people, who did nothing wrong, under the bus.

Think of me what you will. I have my sense of morality. And I'm sticking by it.

What sense of morality? What are you sticking by?

You might not like Zak, his online attitude, his porno lifestyle, or his work, but where does He Said / She Said hearsay demand "drumming out of the business he earned"?

What happens when we all hear the "truth" about Darrin Kelley? What happens when your ex-somebody declares you a monster? And if not you, maybe someone you care about?

On that day, will Darrin Kelley "deserve the drumming" the online mob is braying for?

ZakS may be everything Mandy said and more. The operative word is "may".

We, the online spectators to this sad spectacle, have no facts, just hearsay, and there's nothing "moral" about damning people on hearsay.

Faces gone from photographs
People unremembered
If it's good enough for Stalin
I guess it has to do.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1076579What sense of morality? What are you sticking by?

You might not like Zak, his online attitude, his porno lifestyle, or his work, but where does He Said / She Said hearsay demand "drumming out of the business he earned"?

What happens when we all hear the "truth" about Darrin Kelley? What happens when your ex-somebody declares you a monster? And if not you, maybe someone you care about?

On that day, will Darrin Kelley "deserve the drumming" the online mob is braying for?

ZakS may be everything Mandy said and more. The operative word is "may".

We, the online spectators to this sad spectacle, have no facts, just hearsay, and there's nothing "moral" about damning people on hearsay.

I think it's important to realize that there's a huge mountain of evidence that has nothing to do with hearsay. There's loads of perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike or wish to do no further business with Zak; he's combative, dismissive, elitist, and consistently mocks and belittles those with whom he disagrees. I don't need hearsay to tell me that; his blog has been in my favorites list for years, it's easily observable evidence that clearly exhibits his character.

One of the reasons this is striking a lot of his fans (like me) so close to home is that, when the first wave of controversies surrounding him hit (there have subsequently been an embarrassing amount more), Mandi's defense of him re-characterized his behavior in terms of someone who, though not entirely objective (she was dating him at the time) nonetheless was personally close to him and could "fill in" the gaps that we saw in his humanity looking only through the lens of online interaction (where, let's be real, we all look like assbags of some variety).

For that entire defense to not only be a lie, but one manufactured to allow him to continue demeaning, pointlessly cruel online behavior? That's a betrayal of our trust as fans. Even if you don't give a crap about what actually went down between him and Mandi and apparently a gaggle of other victims, he betrayed us by lying to us.

I, like you, don't care much about online hearsay. But yeah, I'm personally done with the guy; I'm not burning his books, but I'm not recommending them anymore either. I'm not asking people to boycott him, but I'm not following him on twitter or going to his blog anymore.

We don't live in a world where business and personalities are as divorced as they once were. This is a small, intimate industry of creatives; if you've got not one, but dozens of accounts of hideously criminal, exploitative and dangerous behavior? Eventually you will get some backlash. Zak's pretty famous for personal, vindictive counter-attacks when he's called into any kind of question. You tell me; what kind of healthy personality does that?

Even Pundit, for all the shade he draws, is at least specific about the behaviors and attitudes he's responding to in his arguments. What's more, his arguments are fully explained, articulated, and don't rely on the kind of eyerolling, sneering elitism that so characterizes Zak's discourse.

Again, I've been Zak's fan for years; his stuff is great. But even if you've got the best GM on planet earth (and doubtless Zak is a contender), there can come a point where their behavior is such that you stop going to their table: it's not worth it anymore.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1075868This made me laugh:





Of course, one reason I laughed is that Shark very obviously paints large groups of individuals with the same brush - the very behavior that liberals accuse all the various 'ists' of doing...  



For what it's worth, I don't think that removing Zak's name from the credits is the appropriate response, even if he is a piece of shit.  I can understand how they'd prefer not to associate with someone who they have deep disagreements with, but trying to pretend that they didn't consult with him is factually wrong and cowardly.  If they have a problem with his actions and support believe the accusations against him, they should actually say that.  If they don't believe the accusations, they don't HAVE to say anything, but it certainly would be nice toward Zak S if they did.  

Of course, what I'd have liked to see is them take a moment to address that there can be a lot of hostility to new people entering the hobby, and since the hobby largely started as groups of white guys playing on University Campuses, that the hobby can be unwelcoming to women and people of color.  Fantasy is enriched when more people contribute their stories - D&D should aim for inclusiveness because more options are better.  Nobody can make you use something you don't like at your table - encouraging more people to follow their passion in this hobby is a good thing.  Perhaps in the future in addition to mechanics, they should include consultants to help make game releases more representative and therefore more popular.  I certainly think that a more welcoming hobby with more active players is good for someone like me.

Where and when was this unwelcoming hobby? It certainly wasn't where I was playing. The person who kept after me to try gaming from the mid-70s until 1980 when I succumbed was a woman, the first gaming table I sat at was multi-ethnic and multi-gender. I never saw a game with no women or gay people in it until I went to a con and that was not my usual experience at cons. The only people I remember not welcoming were a guy who always named his character stone arrow and someone who could not shut up about a different system. So, we set aside a night for him to run it and he didn't know the system and had none of the books and so forth.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1075973Yeah your full of shit.  You are defending people who are more than happy to destroy the first amendment.  They literally go out to beat people up just to intimidate others from speaking.  They are evil and deserve to have the army to stomp on their asses.

So what? If the Constitution is worth anything, and it is, the rights of even rotten people must be preserved.

Spinachcat:

People who live honest lives don't have dirt to be dug up. And I live an honest life.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1076579What sense of morality? What are you sticking by?

You might not like Zak, his online attitude, his porno lifestyle, or his work, but where does He Said / She Said hearsay demand "drumming out of the business he earned"?

What happens when we all hear the "truth" about Darrin Kelley? What happens when your ex-somebody declares you a monster? And if not you, maybe someone you care about?

On that day, will Darrin Kelley "deserve the drumming" the online mob is braying for?

ZakS may be everything Mandy said and more. The operative word is "may".

We, the online spectators to this sad spectacle, have no facts, just hearsay, and there's nothing "moral" about damning people on hearsay.

Evidently, ZakS is quite publicly an asshat and people might not want to do business with him or associate with him for that reason.
However, he has not had due process concerning the really serious charges that have recently come up.
Due process used to be important and it still matters except for some crimes. Crimes so horrific, apparently, that no proof of guilt is needed.
Hundreds of years of struggle to get due process
And now we are supposed to applaud lynchings.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1076591Evidently, ZakS is quite publicly an asshat and people might not want to do business with him or associate with him for that reason.
However, he has not had due process concerning the really serious charges that have recently come up.
Due process used to be important and it still matters except for some crimes. Crimes so horrific, apparently, that no proof of guilt is needed.
Hundreds of years of struggle to get due process
And now we are supposed to applaud lynchings.

I wouldn't applaud lynching him.
Boycotting him is another matter.

BTW, hearsay is "I heard X say Y did Z". hear - say. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay.

Quote from: Azraele;1076584I think it's important to realize that there's a huge mountain of evidence that has nothing to do with hearsay. There's loads of perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike or wish to do no further business with Zak; he's combative, dismissive, elitist, and consistently mocks and belittles those with whom he disagrees. I don't need hearsay to tell me that; his blog has been in my favorites list for years, it's easily observable evidence that clearly exhibits his character.

One of the reasons this is striking a lot of his fans (like me) so close to home is that, when the first wave of controversies surrounding him hit (there have subsequently been an embarrassing amount more), Mandi's defense of him re-characterized his behavior in terms of someone who, though not entirely objective (she was dating him at the time) nonetheless was personally close to him and could "fill in" the gaps that we saw in his humanity looking only through the lens of online interaction (where, let's be real, we all look like assbags of some variety).

For that entire defense to not only be a lie, but one manufactured to allow him to continue demeaning, pointlessly cruel online behavior? That's a betrayal of our trust as fans. Even if you don't give a crap about what actually went down between him and Mandi and apparently a gaggle of other victims, he betrayed us by lying to us.

I, like you, don't care much about online hearsay. But yeah, I'm personally done with the guy; I'm not burning his books, but I'm not recommending them anymore either. I'm not asking people to boycott him, but I'm not following him on twitter or going to his blog anymore.

We don't live in a world where business and personalities are as divorced as they once were. This is a small, intimate industry of creatives; if you've got not one, but dozens of accounts of hideously criminal, exploitative and dangerous behavior? Eventually you will get some backlash. Zak's pretty famous for personal, vindictive counter-attacks when he's called into any kind of question. You tell me; what kind of healthy personality does that?

Even Pundit, for all the shade he draws, is at least specific about the behaviors and attitudes he's responding to in his arguments. What's more, his arguments are fully explained, articulated, and don't rely on the kind of eyerolling, sneering elitism that so characterizes Zak's discourse.

Again, I've been Zak's fan for years; his stuff is great. But even if you've got the best GM on planet earth (and doubtless Zak is a contender), there can come a point where their behavior is such that you stop going to their table: it's not worth it anymore.

Did he admit that he faked that Mandi post/defense?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076590Spinachcat:

People who live honest lives don't have dirt to be dug up. And I live an honest life.

It's not about honest life. It's what do you do if someone makes it all up about you.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1076598Did he admit that he faked that Mandi post/defense?

Even if he didn't, doesn't she damage her own credibility if she's lying? I mean; she either lies to fit a narrative (now and then) or she's telling the truth about lying then. There's not some third option that makes her original defense sound anymore, no matter what he admits to.

Quote from: Azraele;1076584I think it's important to realize that there's a huge mountain of evidence that has nothing to do with hearsay. There's loads of perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike or wish to do no further business with Zak; he's combative, dismissive, elitist, and consistently mocks and belittles those with whom he disagrees. I don't need hearsay to tell me that; his blog has been in my favorites list for years, it's easily observable evidence that clearly exhibits his character.

I keep seeing people say this and I have to wonder if the mountain of evidence is real then why is the serial rapist not arrested or charged with a crime?

Is our justice system really so broken? I'm just seeing a fairly large disconnect between what everyone believes he did and the actual legal consequences.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1076626I keep seeing people say this and I have to wonder if the mountain of evidence is real then why is the serial rapist not arrested or charged with a crime?

Is our justice system really so broken? I'm just seeing a fairly large disconnect between what everyone believes he did and the actual legal consequences.

Failed to read the post you replied to, I see.

It's small wonder that you've also failed to note Zak's consistently malfeasencent communication habits and needlessly combative online interactions with that unsurprising lack of reading comprehension.

But here? I've noted people tend to read and understand things before publically responding to them.

Pity for you, you failed to follow that example.

Quote from: Azraele;1076654Failed to read the post you replied to, I see.

It's small wonder that you've also failed to note Zak's consistently malfeasencent communication habits and needlessly combative online interactions with that unsurprising lack of reading comprehension.

But here? I've noted people tend to read and understand things before publically responding to them.

Pity for you, you failed to follow that example.

I know almost nothing about Zak and asked a simple question about how there can be "mountains of evidence" for illegal behavior and no charges pressed or arrest made.