There's still a big difference between "personal boycott" and something more organized (however that is done) and then onto coerced boycotting (such as removing access to distribution channels).  The bar should be a lot higher, the further you go on that continuum.  

I have "personal boycotts" of all kinds of things, for all kinds of reasons.  Sometimes, they probably wouldn't stand up to any kind of careful scrutiny, beyond--dislike the person enough that it impedes my enjoyment of their work.  I feel no need whatsoever to justify that kind of boycott.  It's not like I'm out there actively publicizing my dislike every chance I get, much less trying to have their works curtailed or even banned.  The more "in your face" an author is with the things that cause me to dislike them, the more likely I am to reciprocate by not buying.  

The more strict and widespread the boycott, the more onus is on the boycotters to justify it.  And the more they can be justly called out for bad reasoning, faulty evidence, etc.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1076969If you require moral purity of your authours, you are going to have a rather bare bookshelf, and had best not go to the cinema or turn on the radio at all.

For some, it's a matter of moral purity. For a great many others who engage in these social media lynchings, it's about tribal solidarity. It turns out the vastly expanded social networks we've been exposed to with modern technology have left many feeling tremendously insecure about their status. They desperately want to be recognized - even by strangers who they'll never meet - as good and moral folks. So they'll support/condemn all sorts of things if it means social validation from the crowd.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1077010Game publishing is a creative hobby; gamers have a relationship with the creatives.  That works to encourage sales from people that are respected and is works to discourage sales from people that are disliked.  There are people who don't like the idea of needing to maintain a professional image, but that's the reality for everyone.  While it's certainly possible to go 'too far', nobody here (that I'm aware of) is advocating any kind of harassment campaign against Zak, or any plan to make sure he can't get any jobs in any other industry.  Am I mistaken?

Personally, I think it's unhealthy for the audience to feel they have a personal relationship with creators. It can't have any good influence on the art itself, while the psychological needs fans are trying to satisfy would be better met through genuine two-way relationships with people who they interact with in meat-space: family, friends, co-workers, neighbours. Making creators a proxy for these relationships, and turning a hobby or art interest into a moral 'community', gives finger-wagging scolds and the insecure lonely greater scope to act out their pathologies on a lot of other people who just want to play a game or read a book.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1077048There's still a big difference between "personal boycott" and something more organized (however that is done) and then onto coerced boycotting (such as removing access to distribution channels).  The bar should be a lot higher, the further you go on that continuum.  

I agree. Removing Zak from DriveThru was a marginal call for me but on balance I'm ok with it. I'm ok if he's banned from Patreon, but I would be against him being banned by Paypal, Visa/Mastercard, or his bank.

Obviously I would be against innocent targets of SJW aggression like Grim & Venger, or lovable contrarian assholes like Pundit, being banned from DriveThru/RPGNow.

Quote from: Haffrung;1077063Personally, I think it's unhealthy for the audience to feel they have a personal relationship with creators.

I don't disagree; but I don't think as an author you can court your audience (as Zak did) and then protest that they don't like you.  He didn't HAVE to try to create a relationship; he thought it would help him.  It probably did until it didn't.  Assuming it didn't.  It's probably too soon to tell.  There are authors who I know nothing about - Zak made it a point of inserting himself into any discussion that touched on him or his activities.

Quote from: Motorskills;1076973Not so fast Mr Shark! (I mean, don't stop, else you will sink, but slow down a bunch, eh?)

Kyle is comparing apples with oranges. Most of those folks were long dead before I (an old guy) were exposed to their works. As brilliant as they are, I don't consider their works, at the cost of the misery they* inflicted, a reasonable trade.
*some, not all
But in 2019 the damage is already done. We can enjoy their works without rewarding the authors for their misdeeds.


But when living artists are revealed to be terrible people, it is appropriate to shun their work. It doesn't mean their work isn't good, brilliant even. It's that the authors - and in turn, ourselves - are supposed to pay an appropriate price. Eventually that price becomes a deterrent. And that's a good thing.

There's another element, particularly applicable in the case of Harvey Weinstein and the like: how much genius have we been denied because these monsters put their deviancy ahead of the world's opportunity to benefit from unknown talent? We can't ever know, and that's a crying shame.

I've long believed the art is not the artist, and one should separate the value of the art from the value of the artist.  When you start to purge art based on moral objections concerning the artist, I believe all of art is damaged by that purge.  But let's see if you really mean what you're saying?


Watched any movie attached to John Lasseter (Pixar) after he was accused? This means by the way you will never see any of these movies again until John Lasseter dies: Little Mermaid, Kiki's Delivery Service, Beauty and the Beast, Nightmare Before Christmas, Lion King, Toy Story (any), Bugs Life, Monsters Inc (any), Spirited Away, Finding Nemo (any), Incredibles (any), Howls' Moving Castle, Cars (any), Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, Ponyo, Princes and the Frog, Winnie the Pooh, The Muppets, Brave, Big Hero 6, Wreck-It Ralph (any), Frozen (any), Inside Out, Zootopia, Moana, Coco, etc.

Watched any movie by Roman Polanski after he was accused in 1977?
James Franco?
Louis C.K.?
Richard Dreyfuss?
Dustin Hoffman?
Jeremy Piven?
Steven Seagal?
Tom Sizemore?
Kevin Spacey?
George Takei?
Harvey Weinsten?

Quote from: Motorskills;1076973Kyle is comparing apples with oranges. Most of those folks were long dead before I (an old guy) were exposed to their works.

So if Zak gets run over by a truck tomorrow, you can read his writing again?

Quote from: John KimI agree with you on much of this - but this is ridiculous equivalence. 17 is the age of consent in much of the U.S., Canada, and Europe even at present. In England at the time, the age of consent was 16. There were plenty of respectable relationships with 17 year olds. Oscar Wilde was convicted for being a homosexual, not for pedophilia.

Jurisdictions vary hugely in this. And circumstances vary; for example, here in Victoria it's 16 generally, but 18 if they're under your care. So legally I can have sex with a 16yo girl, but if I'm her schoolteacher it's sexual assault of a minor.

In most places, 18 or 21 are the ages of legal adulthood, being able to drink, vote, drive, marry and so on. Oscar Wilde had sex with a person who was not a legal adult. If he were around today, the press would call him a paedophile.

Quote from: OmegaExcept Jackson was the victim of false accusation as was proven in court.

More accusations have come to light since then, and they are detailed in a documentary showing in Australia right now.

Of course, Zak has not been convicted of any wrongdoing, he's simply been subject to public accusations. So... believe all victims of Zak, but don't believe all victims of Michael Jackson?

Quote from: HaffrungFor some, it's a matter of moral purity. For a great many others who engage in these social media lynchings, it's about tribal solidarity. It turns out the vastly expanded social networks we've been exposed to with modern technology have left many feeling tremendously insecure about their status. They desperately want to be recognized - even by strangers who they'll never meet - as good and moral folks. So they'll support/condemn all sorts of things if it means social validation from the crowd.

That's very insightful.

More importantly I do not want to put money in the pockets of known crooks, creeps, and whatnod. After they shuffle off the mortal coil? Thats a different issue. Hopefully.

"But that doesnt matter. All I want is my pwecious game!" is NOT an excuse. You are rewarding them by ignoring whatever it was they did. Or may still be doing.

I mean hey. That designer only slashed a kid with a knife, robbed a family, and stranded another kid. What does that matter when I really like that game! Here. Have some more money! And I had a person do EXACTLY this when informed of what had happened. And I've seen this in the art biz too.

Quote from: S'mon;1076995Awful lot of false accusers.
From yesterday - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6753623/Michael-Jackson-victims-say-late-pop-star-told-first.html

In reality of course they failed to prove Jackson guilty in court when he was prosecuted, they did not prove him innocent.

So if 1000 people say the same lie it's suddenly the truth to you?  I dunno man, I have no idea who this Zak S. is and I don't really care, but unless he's convicted of a crime, slandering him is not fair and can get you litigated.

Being a creep is not a crime (no matter how much the twatters want it to be), if it was, most of us in this very forum would be in jail (which by the way includes me.)

Quote from: Haffrung;1077063For some, it's a matter of moral purity. For a great many others who engage in these social media lynchings, it's about tribal solidarity. It turns out the vastly expanded social networks we've been exposed to with modern technology have left many feeling tremendously insecure about their status. They desperately want to be recognized - even by strangers who they'll never meet - as good and moral folks. So they'll support/condemn all sorts of things if it means social validation from the crowd.

It's actually very old. It's holier-than-thou, just draped in the modern clothes of secular ethics. It's pointing your finger at others and going "Look at these sinners. I'm so much better than these. Can't we just stone them?" Fore the record, I consider the boycoteers, for the most part, to be among them, just in a milder form.

Quote from: Omega;1077079More importantly I do not want to put money in the pockets of known crooks, creeps, and whatnod.

So you're saying you want known creeps to rob and brutally murder you because nobody wants to put money in their pocket, not even for honest work, so they have no other choice but turn to crime? Or do you just want other people to support their livelihood?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1077068I don't disagree; but I don't think as an author you can court your audience (as Zak did) and then protest that they don't like you.  He didn't HAVE to try to create a relationship; he thought it would help him.  It probably did until it didn't.  Assuming it didn't.  It's probably too soon to tell.  There are authors who I know nothing about - Zak made it a point of inserting himself into any discussion that touched on him or his activities.

Yeah, in a lot of cases the relationships between artists and the audience is a two-way street. Especially in today's creative climate where it's difficult to build an audience without courting these online 'communities.'

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077081It's actually very old. It's holier-than-thou, just draped in the modern clothes of secular ethics. It's pointing your finger at others and going "Look at these sinners. I'm so much better than these. Can't we just stone them?" Fore the record, I consider the boycoteers, for the most part, to be among them, just in a milder form.

For sure it's an old impulse. But I do think social media has amplified it tremendously.

Quote from: Omega;1077079More importantly I do not want to put money in the pockets of known crooks, creeps, and whatnod. After they shuffle off the mortal coil? Thats a different issue. Hopefully.

"But that doesnt matter. All I want is my pwecious game!" is NOT an excuse. You are rewarding them by ignoring whatever it was they did. Or may still be doing.

I mean hey. That designer only slashed a kid with a knife, robbed a family, and stranded another kid. What does that matter when I really like that game! Here. Have some more money! And I had a person do EXACTLY this when informed of what had happened. And I've seen this in the art biz too.

I get your position. So, I'll ask you directly. John Lasseter makes money off of every dollar generated by any Disney or Pixar film. Even though he's temporarily stepped down, he still makes money off of them. Will you commit to never seeing a single Disney or Pixar movie, or buy a single Disney or Pixar related product, for the indefinite future until he dies? Or is this just reserved to games for you, and you're not willing to expand this to outside of gaming?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1077080Being a creep is not a crime (no matter how much the twatters want it to be), if it was, most of us in this very forum would be in jail (which by the way includes me.)

Speak for yourself, I'm actually quite normal!

Quote from: Omega;1077079More importantly I do not want to put money in the pockets of known crooks, creeps, and whatnod... You are rewarding them by ignoring whatever it was they did. Or may still be doing.

Or may not be doing. Or may never have done. One might wonder how you "know" these things.

Quote from: Omega;1077079More importantly I do not want to put money in the pockets of known crooks, creeps, and whatnod. After they shuffle off the mortal coil? Thats a different issue. Hopefully.

"But that doesnt matter. All I want is my pwecious game!" is NOT an excuse. You are rewarding them by ignoring whatever it was they did. Or may still be doing.

I mean hey. That designer only slashed a kid with a knife, robbed a family, and stranded another kid. What does that matter when I really like that game! Here. Have some more money! And I had a person do EXACTLY this when informed of what had happened. And I've seen this in the art biz too.

So what about the crooks that use false narratives about harassment? Do they get your money?