Unless someone presses charges, they are just allegations.  And allegations are not proof of misconduct.

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 agree with this.  

It's normal to want to stand by your friends even if you know they're doing things that you don't approve of.  Someone can be a literal Nazi or a card-carrying member of the KKK and have a wife, family and friends.  And if you aren't associated with a group that they dislike, they can be quite charming, I'm sure.  Even if they've never done anything to you, you should ask yourself at what point does your friendship enable behaviors that you don't approve of.  

In Zak's case, a lot of his prior defenses were 'if you don't believe me, ask Mandy'.  So when Mandy makes an allegation, a whole bunch of his prior defenses are called into question.  It isn't one thing - it's just the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of people.  Even if this specific allegation isn't true, combined with so many negative behaviors and the preponderance of various accusations unrelated to this now worth reviewing, it's possible to make the decision that you don't want to be enabling his behavior.  That's a decision that every individual is entitled to make for themselves.  

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1076588Where and when was this unwelcoming hobby?

Did you hear about the Gnome problem in 4th edition?  Gnomes are not a popular race.  They decided that they didn't need Gnomes.  Turns out that it was a really unpopular decision.  Even though most players weren't interested in gnomes, a large number of groups were.  If the average group is 5 people and 10% of players like gnomes, there's a good chance that half the players are playing with someone who likes a gnome.  

The way this works with someone being unwelcoming is just like this - if even one player in 10 is an asshat and doesn't like playing with women (or thinks that their characters need to be given statistical adjustments that reduce their Strength, Constitution, Intelligence and offer a bonus to Charisma) or a minority, there's a good chance that women and minorities have experienced being unwelcome even if your table has always been welcoming.  I've seen some things that I don't approve of - back in the day I didn't say more to stop it.  There are plenty of anecdotes available from the people that the abusive behavior was aimed at, so I don't think my experiences as an observer are particularly relevant (I'm a white cis male).  

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.

The justice system is really so broken.  I could come here and make the claim that I am going to rape my wife (ie, force her to have sexual relations against her will).  Even with a mountain of evidence that it happened, a prosecutor would still have to bring the charges.  Since the crime would have presumably happened with only two witnesses, we have a classic 'he said/she said' situation.  If I claim that this was some type of agreed upon role-play, there are a lot of people who would choose to believe it.  Even if my claims were not credible, approximately 1/4 Americans don't believe in marital rape - with a jury of 12 people the odds of me being convicted are small.  Prosecutors are largely evaluated by their win rate - taking a case that you're unlikely to win is not in their best interest.  Prosecuting real crimes is difficult - so difficult that 97% of Federal Cases and 94% of State cases end in a plea deal.  Prosecutors would rather offer a 'token penalty' with the potential of a severe sentence as a consequence to avoid a trial.  There are a lot of ways our legal system is broken, and rape cases are just one example.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076661Unless someone presses charges, they are just allegations.  And allegations are not proof of misconduct.

Even if someone does press charges, that's still not proof. It's just allegations that the defendant could be found innocent of. A conviction would be the closest thing to proof.

I would note, for example, that Matt Loter is accused of assault on Jeremy Hambly - but he has not yet been convicted of anything. There is a civil suit against him, but it is still in process. I'm not sure if any criminal charges have been filed.

There are also convictions that have been overturned for one reason or another, including 364 exonerations based off of DNA evidence.  

There are a lot of day-to-day activities that you accept without iron-clad proof. If someone tells me the kettle is hot, I don't feel inclined to 'prove it'.

If being an asshole on the internet is a good reason to ban someone from an event, I daresay 99% of us have come across as assholes to someone.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076719If being an asshole on the internet is a good reason to ban someone from an event, I daresay 99% of us have come across as assholes to someone.

Hey man look, don't drag the good name of internet assholes through the mud here. There's a universe of difference between the shit I do and a guy who's consistently accused of detestable crimes by huge volumes of industry notables and insistent/consistent people with an ever-growing body of experiential evidence.

You've got to seriously torture logic to see Zak as the constant victim of a decade of well-orchestrated character assassination when people like Ken Hite and Patrick Stewart (others he's enlisted to legitimize himself, because his conduct never has) both came out with statements confirming his moral turpitude.

That's a far cry from even the worst shit guys like Pundit have done or even been accused of doing. Don't make false equivalencies.

Quote from: Azraele;1076600Even 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.

I see, so you're saying either way she can't be trusted. But then doesn't that throw doubt on what she's saying as far as being anti-Zak too?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1076726I see, so you're saying either way she can't be trusted. But then doesn't that throw doubt on what she's saying as far as being anti-Zak too?

Yes it does.

Quote from: Azraele;1076722You've got to seriously torture logic to see Zak as the constant victim of a decade of well-orchestrated character assassination when people like Ken Hite and Patrick Stewart...

I think you mean Patrick Stuart.  I don't know who that is, but he seems to be someone in the RPG scene, as opposed to Patrick Stewart who is the captain of the Enterprise C.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1076726I see, so you're saying either way she can't be trusted. But then doesn't that throw doubt on what she's saying as far as being anti-Zak too?

Of course, if we follow the logic of her lack trustworthiness. The problem is, Zak relied on her defense for years to legitimize his observably bad behavior: her defense included an excuse for a bigger picutre to his personality that we didn't see. If you remove that from him, the only evidence you can glean as an internet rando is:

1) That all of his co-workers and allies with established credibility have backed up her statement of his moral turpitude
2) Waves of people claim personal damage and harassment from Zak and people who support him, and have screenshot of him ordering his fanbase to "destroy" people making accusations against him
3) His word against recorded evidence of him posing as Shannon Appelcline in online debate in some sort of trolling or smear campaign (to my knowledge his defense of this was that someone he knew that used his computer was doing this, not him: as far as defenses go, not a strong one)
4) His insistence on "real" evidence to back up any claim again him, and his vigorous and never-ending smear campaigns and discrediting screeds against anyone who dares to present such evidence
5) His decades of combative and inflammatory posting habits in every place any evidence of this can be gathered
6) The site a friend of his made defending him by trying desperately to catalog the evidence exonerating him of these wrongdoings which was abandoned in frustration by said friend because the evidence just kept piling up against Zak
7) His continues tactic of enlisting new people (whose credentials we can't establish) to legitimize his behavior because, again, his actual behavior does not withstand scrutiny and points to him as a manipulative, deceitful and vindictive person

I mean look, maybe all of that doesn't convince you he's a bad person, or someone you're just tired of because his work isn't worth the trouble of his personality. But I've personally finally reached the point where I'm tired of listening to him tell me to disbelieve my own powers of reason and observation; his skill as a liar and manipulator have run out, because there's no longer any credibility to support that perspective.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1076738I think you mean Patrick Stuart.  I don't know who that is, but he seems to be someone in the RPG scene, as opposed to Patrick Stewart who is the captain of the Enterprise C.

Those are different people?! XD

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1076738Patrick Stewart who is the captain of the Enterprise C.

You fail at Star Trek. Picard (Stewart) was captain of the Stargazer, Enterprise-D, and Enterprise-E. He did not captain the Enterprise-C.

Huh.  I typed D originally, than I googled it and that showed up as the one with the third nacel (the one that Captain Riker commanded from the future).  I guess that was just an upgraded version of the D.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1076746Huh.  I typed D originally, than I googled it and that showed up as the one with the third nacel (the one that Captain Riker commanded from the future).  I guess that was just an upgraded version of the D.

That was the DD. The two Ds are for a double-dose of Starfleet pimpin!

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076590Spinachcat:

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

Do you? All it takes is for someone to say you did something, that there IS dirt and that is it.

Or worse. Someone screws you over and then paints you as the villain, the abuser.

I used to game with a person who did exactly that. For fun. To people they meet online. Gain Darrin's trust and then totally crush it. And then move on to the next victim with the sob story of how Darrin was so mean to them and it was so heartbreaking what he did. Repeat that across several more. It does not matter what Darrin says, he is obviously a lying creep and should be ostracized.

A few years back I met one of his cronies who informed me this person does this to people for real as well. Not just online.

False accusations is not anything new. It is just getting more prevalent in recent years.

As for Zak and Mandy. Who knows what really happened. In the current false accusations climate we exist in now we have no choice but to pause and wonder who is telling the truth. And we will likely never know for sure. Considering Zak's attitude issues he has pretty much set the stage for his own downfall. Not helped that there are fruitcakes like Zwei out there gunning for him and others who will just make stuff up or cherry pick comments to paint whatever picture they want.