Quote from: EOTB;1075742As a generality, I'd say that when a narcissist is receiving more supply than they normally do, they're typically charming, happy, cuddly people who leave you feeling wonderful, not in danger.  Frank at cons is probably the safest he is ever going to be.  Those who know him better will decide if that's safe enough.

But when everyone was commenting on my situation about how wonderful Frank was personally to them, primarily at conventions, I didn't doubt them at all.  In fact, bad convention behavior would have been a piece of Frank's personality puzzle that didn't fit, rather than one that confirmed my suspicions.

Quote from: Omega;1075745I have met a few artists who were like that too. Really nice at cons. But once they got out of sight they Jekyll/Hyde into some of the worst people. And a few who were the opposite. Really unpleasant at a con. Which cost them commissions. But pretty nice once out of the public.

This is why we should never treat real life and online life as the same thing, as many in the Zak threads on #Reddit were arguing for, perhaps in an attempt to draw some correlation between his online behavior and what he's now accused of. But people are complicated, and these sorts of seemingly meaningful correlations are incredibly dangerous because they're the very foundation of all the bigotry everyone seems to have a problem with.

When I heard about this I got a copy of BECMI and decided to run a game of it with my wife and daughters. This is going to be the edition of D&D that they will play just like I did back in the day.

Quote from: Blink_Dog;1076468When I heard about this I got a copy of BECMI and decided to run a game of it with my wife and daughters. This is going to be the edition of D&D that they will play just like I did back in the day.

Good choice! It was my son (Bill, 11)'s first D&D too, when he was 6-8, and the lessons in Mentzer BECM set him up great to be a good player for life.

Quote from: S'mon;1076469Good choice! It was my son (Bill, 11)'s first D&D too, when he was 6-8, and the lessons in Mentzer BECM set him up great to be a good player for life.

Agreed. I remember it being the game that gave me the greatest enjoyment to least anguish ratio of any RPG that I have played. I don't remember too many rules arguments or nitpicking.

Frank responds:
https://www.facebook.com/frank.mentzer/posts/2166010183478721

Quote from: mightybrain;1077041Frank responds:
https://www.facebook.com/frank.mentzer/posts/2166010183478721

In 2015, I had a security problem (unauthorized use of my desktop computer), the only one in 10 years. But Dragonsfoot simply closed my account and never responded to my emails. They never handled the matter properly or fairly.

I did not write or send the nasty private message being quoted publicly. The recipient joined Dragonsfoot moderators Silvey, Marshall, and Gonnerman (the latter two having written OSRIC and BFRP, respectively) to make their accusations public at another website (Knights & Knaves Alehouse, now a locked NSFW thread). Their tales have been widely circulated in place of the facts.

Ironically if he had just said "sorry" instead of "My account was hacked" or now "Someone else used my PC", I think he'd be forgiven. Dragonsfoot is hardly a haven of SJWs out to destroy Cis White Men. It also brings the credibility of his account of his interaction with Price into question.

Quote from: mightybrain;1077041Frank responds:
https://www.facebook.com/frank.mentzer/posts/2166010183478721

Yeah, I remember that stuff. He's lying, of course...the admins pretty much proved it was the same IP as his usual system, so some nefarious anti-Mentzer fan had to not only hack his Dragonsfoot account, but also his personal machine to send those message. The real story is probably something like, "Old man gets drunk and sends some messages he regrets. The End."

EDIT: I mean about the messageboard threats. I'm convinced the nonsense with that SJW reactionary are true.

Unfortunate as it casts doubt on the rest of what he says... but I didn't make the connection between Price and her later behaviors.

Quote from: Brad;1077050Yeah, I remember that stuff. He's lying, of course...the admins pretty much proved it was the same IP as his usual system, so some nefarious anti-Mentzer fan had to not only hack his Dragonsfoot account, but also his personal machine to send those message. The real story is probably something like, "Old man gets drunk and sends some messages he regrets. The End."

EDIT: I mean about the messageboard threats. I'm convinced the nonsense with that SJW reactionary are true.

Yeah, his story about "I was hacked" changed to "I had a house guest that I refuse to dox" in the comments, when confronted by Paul Stuart Tucker. I find it amazing that anyone actually buys that explanation. The initial exchange goes:

QuotePaul Stuart Tucker In no particular order
Dragonsfoot investigated and did not substantiate your claim of being 'hacked'. It was also consistent with other messages you've said, contained information that only someone in your position would know and people can read the PM you sent, other insulting PMs you sent and more information regarding why you were banned from Dragonsfoot here:

http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14851

You've misrepresented your exchanges with Price above
Price's tweets about you came after you'd already posted about relaunching the kickstarter and its funding had collapsed.
Here's your post from the 16th of October claiming you were delaying the relaunch that you'd already announced

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/extsr/frank-mentzers-empyrea-fantasy-setting-for-10-rpg/posts/2016905

Here's the funding tracker for the kickstarter showing the complete collapse in backers and funding before Price said anything:

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/extsr/frank-mentzers-empyrea-fantasy-setting-for-10-rpg/

So two days before those tweets, it had already gone negative in funding and backers withdrawing from the project.
There's a lot more out there, but really that all discredits your claim, as it was discredited at the time when you did the 'it wasn't me' original defence.

QuoteFrank Mentzer  I fully concur that the social media negativity make realistic assessment of success bleak, removing all chance of success. , You think we were already doomed, that the people I paid to run the KS had already blown it. We were all still striving for success, and none of the guest stars had yet arrived on the public PR scene.

QuoteFrank Mentzer  Others maintain that since the message was sent from my computer, it must have been me personally. It was a house guest, who I refuse to Dox. Examine the dozens of selfies on the internet of people at my desk, using or next to that exact computer. Convict me of being lax in security, and hang me in absentia on other charges.

Quote from: mightybrain;1077041Frank responds:
https://www.facebook.com/frank.mentzer/posts/2166010183478721

Having seen someone using someones else computer and account, his story seems very plausible to me.

Quote from: jhkim;1077064Yeah, his story about "I was hacked" changed to "I had a house guest that I refuse to dox" in the comments, when confronted by Paul Stuart Tucker. I find it amazing that anyone actually buys that explanation. The initial exchange goes:

Cult of personality is a real thing. People don't like having their childhood idols destroyed, and are willing to buy whatever flimsy excuse that keeps them perfect. Mentzer Red Box was my first rpg, and pretty much still in my Top 3. When I met Mentzer at NTRPG Con a few years back, it was really cool and I'll admit I had some celebrity shock. But I'm also not an idiot; if Clint Eastwood (my favorite actor and director, bar none) murdered someone and it was on video, I'd say, yeah, I guess he's a murderer. I surely wouldn't believe some horseshit about fabricated videos and body doubles or whatever, as I'm sure SOME would be suckered into.

From those posts, it's not hard to connect the dots: Mentzer's Kickstarter was failing, he didn't know how to deal with a negative campaign against him, and he lashed out. So, yeah, harm and foul sure, but don't fucking lie about it. Everyone can be a dick every so often; if he had fessed up and apologized, I bet Dragonsfoot wouldn't have banned him. As an aside, I had my DF account deleted because of too many autistic fucktards were posting incessantly and it was rather annoying. I check out the forums every once in a while and lo, the same idiots who annoyed me before using the same tired old arguments. why Mentzer was banned for bad behavior is beyond me, as there are PLENTY of people on DF who are arguably worse.

I don't know about Dragon's Foot or what posts Frank Mentzer was responding to there, but I don't think that 'someone responded from my computer' is very convincing.  While that type of thing COULD happen, the only people that should be able to access your computer are people you trust.  If I was trying to play a prank and sent a message, I'd have come forward immediately and said how sorry I was for making trouble for my friend.  Keep in mind  that I work for a company that requires you to lock your computer; if you don't, as a prank people will start an e-mail to the CEO (but of course won't send it).  If someone that I trusted violated that trust and didn't admit to it, I think I'd be willing to accept the consequences - claiming that it was someone else but then refusing to name them means letting the buck stop with me.  

I can't see why someone else WOULD have sent a PM like that.  It doesn't look like much of a joke; it doesn't look like a 'protective friend'.  

I think admitting that you were angry and weren't thinking clearly and you wish you could apologize and take it back would go farther.  Depending on how much other stuff there is, I think I could accept the community banning me if they didn't feel that my apology was sufficiently sincere.  Nobody owes you a platform.

Apply Occam's razor to the possibilities:

• Frank got annoyed at EOTB and sent an ill-considered and threatening PM that mirrored the same kind of sentiments that he had posted (and has admitted to posting) publicly, but upped the hostility. Now he regrets it, and is annoyed that his "private communication" ever became public, but he doesn't want to admit to anything, so he's fallen back on "I was hacked" or "Someone else used my computer" or whatever else to throw doubt on the situation.
• Frank was hacked (pretty much debunked as completely implausible in light of the server logs/activity/IPs/etc., already)
• A guest of Frank's used Frank's computer and decided to use Frank's DF account to send an ill-considered and threatening PM to another gamer. A PM that mirrored the same kind of sentiments that Frank had previously posted publicly. This person skillfully mirrored not only Frank's sentiments, but even idiosyncrasies of grammar (e.g., capitalization) and phrasing. Despite the fallout from his guest treating Frank so poorly by pretending to be him, Frank valiantly preserves his guest's anonymity.

Which of these seems most likely to be true?

Personally, I think Frank sent the PM. I think he should've owned up to it, said he got angry and did something stupid, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. I can respect that. I've done and said stupid stuff I regretted, later. I can understand that. Given the information made public (e.g, the content of the messages, the public posts, the server log info), claiming to be hacked (and now claiming a known person used his computer but not saying who that might be) fails to impress.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1077086Occam's razor.

• Frank got annoyed at EOTB and sent an ill-considered and threatening PM that mirrored the same kind of sentiments that he had posted (and has admitted to posting) publicly, but upped the hostility. Now he regrets it, and is annoyed that his "private communication" ever became public, but he doesn't want to admit to anything, so he's fallen back on "I was hacked" or "Someone else used my computer" or whatever else to throw doubt on the situation.
• Frank was hacked (pretty much debunked as completely implausible in light of the server logs/activity/IPs/etc., already)
• A guest of Frank's used Frank's computer and decided to use Frank's account to send an ill-considered and threatening PM to another gamer that mirrored the same kind of sentiments that Frank had previously posted publicly. This person skillfully mirrored not only Frank's sentiments, but even idiosyncrasies of grammar (e.g., capitalization) and phrasing. Despite the fallout from his guest treating Frank so poorly by pretending to be him, Frank valiantly preserves his guest's anonymity.

Which of these seems most likely to be true?

Personally, I think Frank sent the PM. I think he should've owned up to it, said he got angry and did something stupid, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. I can respect that. I've done and said stupid stuff I regretted, later. I can understand that. Given the information made public (e.g, the content of the messages, the public posts, the server log info), claiming to be hacked (and now claiming a known person used his computer but not saying who that might be) fails to impress.

Yeah, I think this is exactly right. The threatening PM to EOTB was either Mentzer or a master forger, it sounded exactly like him with extra ladles of hostility & pomposity. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt. It's more likely that Zak S is the wholly innocent victim of a gynocentric conspiracy than that Frank M didn't send that PM.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1077086Apply Occam's razor to the possibilities:

• Frank got annoyed at EOTB and sent an ill-considered and threatening PM that mirrored the same kind of sentiments that he had posted (and has admitted to posting) publicly, but upped the hostility. Now he regrets it, and is annoyed that his "private communication" ever became public, but he doesn't want to admit to anything, so he's fallen back on "I was hacked" or "Someone else used my computer" or whatever else to throw doubt on the situation.
• Frank was hacked (pretty much debunked as completely implausible in light of the server logs/activity/IPs/etc., already)
• A guest of Frank's used Frank's computer and decided to use Frank's DF account to send an ill-considered and threatening PM to another gamer. A PM that mirrored the same kind of sentiments that Frank had previously posted publicly. This person skillfully mirrored not only Frank's sentiments, but even idiosyncrasies of grammar (e.g., capitalization) and phrasing. Despite the fallout from his guest treating Frank so poorly by pretending to be him, Frank valiantly preserves his guest's anonymity.

Which of these seems most likely to be true?

Personally, I think Frank sent the PM. I think he should've owned up to it, said he got angry and did something stupid, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. I can respect that. I've done and said stupid stuff I regretted, later. I can understand that. Given the information made public (e.g, the content of the messages, the public posts, the server log info), claiming to be hacked (and now claiming a known person used his computer but not saying who that might be) fails to impress.

Greetings!

Excellent, Philo. I was just thinking of Occam's Razor as well. I think that your option #1 is the only logical choice.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK