His followers share his interests and deviances.

Make the thread so that nobody wants to go back anymore. It's a way of ending the thread without saying you want to end the thread.
[/quote]

This reminds me of back when Red and her mean girls clique on TBP would talk about anal sex in any thread they didn't approve of to get it shut down.  This must be the community-building we have been hearing so much about.   

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 19, 2024, 03:14:10 PMAnd all this discussion of porn relates to the topic of RPG's how?

It doesn't at this point, and further short posts about porn with no content actually relevant to the topic will be considered attempted derailment. People who post that sort of thing will be banned from the thread.

I mean baby posters in a thread with someone who attracts a ton of attention and sometimes hate?  This thread should have an account age minimum or something, at least make them farm the accounts ahead of time.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 19, 2024, 04:13:14 PM

Quote from: GnomeWorks on December 19, 2024, 03:27:01 PMWelcome to the stupidity of "muh free speech:" if you insist on letting degenerates speak their mind, things will rapidly become a cesspool.

Make the thread so that nobody wants to go back anymore. It's a way of ending the thread without saying you want to end the thread.

right. the thread is pretty much done anyway though, don't you think so? everybody got to make their case, to point a finger, to spew some bs.

Quote from: RPGPundit on December 19, 2024, 08:43:53 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 19, 2024, 03:14:10 PMAnd all this discussion of porn relates to the topic of RPG's how?

It doesn't at this point.

just close it, man. this horse is dead.

Ban them from the thread for derailing.  If they do it again in another thread, just ban them period.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 20, 2024, 01:50:18 AMBan them from the thread for derailing.  If they do it again in another thread, just ban them period.

That is theRPGsite policy. If I'm aware that a thread has gone wildly off-topic, particularly if it seems that some posters are trying to make it go off-topic on purpose, I issue a general warning as I just did. Anyone who breaks that rule is banned from further posting on the thread. If they post again, they get banned. If they engage in threadcrapping in some other thread, they get banned.

Generically talking about porn is obviously not the subject of this thread. Talking about Zak having done porn in relation to how that affects him in the RPG hobby could theoretically be topical.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 19, 2024, 06:41:54 PMHis followers share his interests and deviances.

Makes for a great "community," doesn't it?  Look at all the value added by this discussion.

Even if you took him at his word, this entire concept is so junevile and naive that a self-aware person would look back and cringe that they had thought of it.  But I guess it gives him more opportunities to spread misinformation...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 20, 2024, 06:40:34 AM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 19, 2024, 06:41:54 PMHis followers share his interests and deviances.

Makes for a great "community," doesn't it?  Look at all the value added by this discussion.

Even if you took him at his word, this entire concept is so junevile and naive that a self-aware person would look back and cringe that they had thought of it.  But I guess it gives him more opportunities to spread misinformation...

Since I've never done that, this makes no sense

But we have been over this before:

Quote from: Zak S on December 19, 2024, 07:11:18 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 19, 2024, 06:44:27 AMExcept I didn't lie,

Again (and I've said this before):

We disagree on the meaning of your comment on the first page of this thread.

We don't have to explain it here by typing, because literally anyone who can read this and cares can go back to the first page of the thread and decide for themselves whether they agree with me (you mischaracterized what I said as asking people to "say nice things") or you (you didn't do that and weren't referring to me or my text at all).

Your claim is that your take and actions are based on the premise that your interpretation of your comment on page 1 is correct.
My take and actions are based on the premise that my interpretation of your comment on page1 is correct.

We will not persuade one another and all the information we can provide on the subject to any reader is provided already. You do not have to keep typing.

Quote from: Zak S on December 20, 2024, 09:11:20 AMBut we have been over this before:

So, I will explain it to you, Mathesar, like I would a child.

You claimed that people were spreading misinformation about your letter, and you used my post as an example.  You said:

Quote from: Zak S on December 15, 2024, 12:29:33 PMAgain, this started because the front page has people falsely claiming people who want the book have to "say nice things about me" or the work.

Your defense of yourself was that you never actually said that, and that it was misinformation to draw that conclusion.  You asserted the words you stated were the totality of your meaning:

Quote from: Zak S on December 15, 2024, 05:48:36 PMThe text doesn't say anyone's supposed to make any specific comments. The entire "contract" with people who want the book is laid out in what you posted and that is clear in the post. There isn't any clause saying "you will receive further instructions on what to say"

Well, this is the totality of my statement

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 13, 2024, 09:04:09 PMImagine needing to bribe people to say nice things about you...

Nowhere are you mentioned.

So, if your defense of your letter is that it does not say anything not expressly written there, you cannot logically criticize my statement for anything it does not expressly say.  Appealing to the context of my post as demonstrative invalidates your objection to others examining the context of your letter.  You are demanding a different standard when reading your writing than that when you read others.  This is not "disagreeing" with what my post meant.  It is you demanding that only your exact words count, while asserting the privilege of assuming what everyone else's words mean.  It is logically flawed, and shows that your evaluations cannot be trusted.  You are, by your own actions, unqualified to judge "misinformation," as you are incapable from articulating a consistent definition that doesn't depend on your arbitrary judgements (the same thing you accused Pundit of with the rules of this place).

Your mouth has written cheques your intellect can't cash.  Articulate the objective standard that applies to both your words and mine, or admit you are subjectively defining "misinformation."  At which point, as per that admission, we can treat your evaluations of such as derisively as is obviously warranted...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 20, 2024, 04:02:23 PM

Quote from: Zak S on December 20, 2024, 09:11:20 AMBut we have been over this before:

So, I will explain it to you, Mathesar, like I would a child.

You claimed that people were spreading misinformation about your letter, and you used my post as an example.  You said:

Quote from: Zak S on December 15, 2024, 12:29:33 PMAgain, this started because the front page has people falsely claiming people who want the book have to "say nice things about me" or the work.

Your defense of yourself was that you never actually said that, and that it was misinformation to draw that conclusion.  You asserted the words you stated were the totality of your meaning:

Quote from: Zak S on December 15, 2024, 05:48:36 PMThe text doesn't say anyone's supposed to make any specific comments. The entire "contract" with people who want the book is laid out in what you posted and that is clear in the post. There isn't any clause saying "you will receive further instructions on what to say"

Well, this is the totality of my statement

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 13, 2024, 09:04:09 PMImagine needing to bribe people to say nice things about you...

Nowhere are you mentioned.

So, if your defense of your letter is that it does not say anything not expressly written there, you cannot logically criticize my statement for anything it does not expressly say.  Appealing to the context of my post as demonstrative invalidates your objection to others examining the context of your letter.  You are demanding a different standard when reading your writing than that when you read others.  This is not "disagreeing" with what my post meant.  It is you demanding that only your exact words count, while asserting the privilege of assuming what everyone else's words mean.  It is logically flawed, and shows that your evaluations cannot be trusted.  You are, by your own actions, unqualified to judge "misinformation," as you are incapable from articulating a consistent definition that doesn't depend on your arbitrary judgements (the same thing you accused Pundit of with the rules of this place).

Your mouth has written cheques your intellect can't cash.  Articulate the objective standard that applies to both your words and mine, or admit you are subjectively defining "misinformation."  At which point, as per that admission, we can treat your evaluations of such as derisively as is obviously warranted...

You missed an obvious thing:

My text is a complete business proposal "Hi people: if you do x, I do y" like a contract, it lays out terms.

Your text is one comment in a longer conversation initiated by pundit about my agreement.

If, for example, you say "Uh, that one" in a conversation, it doesn't follow that you are referring to nobody and nothing. The rest of the conversation is necessary for context.

And, again:

Anyone reading this can go back to your comment and decide for themselves.

We don't need to repeat, over and over, the fact that you claim your comment isn't about my text and I do.

We will never convince each other and anyone who needs to decide who is right (which I suspect is almost nobody) can go read page 1 themself.

You can stop typing.

Quote from: Zak S on December 20, 2024, 04:20:56 PMYou can stop typing.

You first.

Serious question: if we were to create a stat in a hypothetical RPG called "Phaggotry" and quantify it on a scale of 1-10, would Zak get an 11?

Quote from: Brad on December 20, 2024, 05:07:53 PMSerious question: if we were to create a stat in a hypothetical RPG called "Phaggotry" and quantify it on a scale of 1-10, would Zak get an 11?

You did see what I posted on this very page, right?

Don't post on this thread again.

Quote from: Zak S on December 19, 2024, 01:19:02 PMZak noises

Since Zak is refusing to engage with anything that is being said I will address my statements to the general public.

~Misinformation
Many interactions with Zak are based around discussions of what is and is not true, fact-checking, misinformation etc. Zak claims that his only purpose here is to fact-check, and we are supposed to believe that his passion for truth is so great that he considers even incorrect statements lying because the person should have 'fact-checked' them. If this were true then we can expect him to aplly this standard to himself and his cult.
Instead we see that any attempts to hold Zak or his goons accountable face misdirection, evasion, dismissive responses, equivocation and similar manipulative tactics. Indeed, his cronies seem almost entirely unable to engage with anything that is being said at a dialectic level, simply providing rote responses.
Any objective evaluation of the facts as they are will conclude that Zak is vastly less credible then anyone on this forum, because he is the only person to have been caught making false claims by the California Superior Court of law (p 37. and p. 38 here).
We might make arguments that others have spread misinformation, but these are not fortified by a rigorous process of discovery. I repeat, of anyone here, we are MOST certain Zak has spread misinformation in his 2019 blog post (oopsie Zak, thats right, you didn't post it on facebook, you posted it on a blog, silly me! guess that 'debunks' the 'argument').

So what is the motive if its not truth?

~Sexual deviancy.
Zak exhibits a host of narcissitic personality traits, ranging from total inability to admit wrong, a sense of grandiosity, entitlement,  manipulativeness, and a lack of empathy. Narcissists suffer from an underdeveloped amygdala, and as a have a constant craving for attention and validation as a result (ref. narcissistic supply).
On the one hand, his host of brain-washed sycophants provides him with plenty of hyperbolic praise and an ability to feel superior. But there is an alternative source of narcissitic supply: If another person can be caught in an inaccuracy, or even convinced that an inaccuracy exists even if it does not, this allows Zak to engage in a semi-erotic scenario where he is perceived as righteous and can then rain condemnation down upon the unfortunate.
This has nothing to do with who is right or wrong, it is simply a pervert, trying to get his fix by clever but rudimentary language manipulation. It is important that anyone engaging in this thread understands the essential falseness of any such interaction. You are not really talking with a human being.  This is just a junkie trying to score, using the medium of language. This also explains the bizarre word games when the pervert is confronted with an inadequacy. Any admission of weakness, no matter how minor, ruins the grandiose fantasy, and causes massive stress.   


~Cam Banks
I, nor anyone else knows what Cam Banks has to do with the fact Zak made 11 false statements as determined by the California Superior Court on his 2019 blogpost. Perhaps this single victory over Cam Banks is of especial importance to him. Perhaps for Zak, when confronted with peers of his agegroup, most of whom have children, lovely mentally-stable wives that have not accused them of abuse, flourishing careers, houses that they own, a retirement plan and mouths full of even, pearly white teeth, the thought of defeating Cam Banks is a source of great pride.
We must imagine that he gazes at them from his crack den, stinking of rotting food, piss, cigarettes and other people's cum, looking at the worn-out, battered slag lying comatose on a stained matress in the middle of the room, surrounded by empty bottles of painkillers and sleeping pills, her breath reeking of cheap red wine and Jamal's buttcrack, and then at last to the signed affidavits framed on the wall. Is the defeat of Cam Banks and Ettin the last thing he will think of before he passes away, alone in some gutter or trash heap?

~Lawsuits
Whenever the lawsuits are mentioned the zak cultists claim any charge has been 'debunked' and any potentially embarassing fact (and there are many) has been 'nitpicked.' But they only use the words, they never show what has been debunked, what claim has been made, what has been nitpicked and what context is needed to get a clearer picture. 
Skerples, who has made the only collection of Zak lawsuits on the internet, is an obvious target for ire. While he has a clear anti-Zak bias, the pieces he links to do seem to be up to date and genuine, and any more recent documentation that would create a different narrative could simply be displayed by Zak himself, instantly discrediting the attempt at collation.
This does not happen. Instead we are told the information has been 'nitpicked' and 'debunked' because 'Zak Won' when the issue of Zak winning or not is not the only issue under discussion. This type of argumentation is simple propaganda. It is not desired that people look into it.

Yet the contrast between the collated documentation and the narrative being put out by the Zak cult is irreconcilable and requires closer investigation. So far, only one side is attempting to provide a complete receipt.

~Pornography
The consumption of Pornography can at best be viewed as similar to an opioid, with a host of undesirable effects on the brain, libido, social life, sense of beauty and relationships of the consoomer. The stimula of porn is a pale imitation of that gained by the sex act and is thus inherently for consumption by losers who do not have access to the real thing.
Porn performers are disproportionally victims or perpetrators of sex crimes and suffer from increased rates of mental illness, suicide, drug-abuse, diseases, injuries resulting from their unhealthy lifestyle, and generally have trouble forming normal relationships. Many regret their career choice. Philosophically, what is perhaps the greatest expression of intimacy between two individuals is now turned into a transactional act for vulgar entertainment. The stigma against this business and its perpetrators is not only correct, it should be stronger.

~Conclusion
I think it would be helpful to remind Zak that if he deems to judge others, he should abide by the standards he seeks to impose. For this reason I have created a light-hearted meme so he may be occasionally reminded.