Even if the files contain actual audio, clips can be edited and re-ordered to create misleading impressions.

The thing to me is that the article accomplishes basically nothing.  Upon being told that these people are a bunch of feckless backstabbers, people here are all, "Yeah, we know.  And?"  While the places where they're popular are just deleting and locking down any mention of it to sweep it under the rug as fast as possible, exactly like the article accused them of doing, so nothing's going to be changing there either.

Quote from: Valatar on January 29, 2024, 01:43:34 AM
The thing to me is that the article accomplishes basically nothing.  Upon being told that these people are a bunch of feckless backstabbers, people here are all, "Yeah, we know.  And?"  While the places where they're popular are just deleting and locking down any mention of it to sweep it under the rug as fast as possible, exactly like the article accused them of doing, so nothing's going to be changing there either.

Personally I think I learned a lot about how the process works and the motivations of the perpetrators.

(I'm playing the "internet detective" game again, I have no particular information about this case)

Patrick Stuart apparently has confirmed talking to this person; so this is probably a real person, as Patrick is portrayed in a negative light in the article, IMO.

https://twitter.com/pjamesstuart/status/1751884833867890952

What is her relationship to the people mentioned in the article remains a mystery. Why only 15 minutes - TEN SECONDS for Patrick - were shown also remains unsolved.

One possibility is that the article is TRUE, but the motives are FALSE. Yes, this is not an "academic work", but an actual investigation to gather evidence against these people, for whatever motive (vindication, litigation, repairing of reputations).

That would explain lots of things, including the number of people that are eager to believe/broadcast the contents and the number of people that are suspicious of the format/motives.

Also explains why it only shows the most damming audios; the rest of the conversation might be interesting for "academic" purposes, but doesn't accomplish the goal of painting these people in a negative light.

Without hearing the conversations, I would bet they were "fishing expeditions": let people talk until you give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 12:04:47 AM
That's because you want it to be false, and this is just a lame excuse.  You have audio of people saying that they targeted and harassed someone via industry contacts, and you want "citations"?  Of what?  What kind of journal article is going to carry more weight than a person's own admissions?

This reminds me of the retards at Wikipedia.  The subject of an article can write in that the article gets his birthday wrong and the smooth brains there will object to changing it because primary sources aren't allowed.  Citations are a tool; accuracy is a goal.  The presence or absence of citations doesn't  make something accurate or not.  The most it can do is ease the process of confirming the accuracy of something.  This is scientism at its worst.

No, I am consciously compensating for confirmation bias. Fact is there are a number of claims in the article which should be citable; Mandy Morbid says Zak S compelled her to get a mohawk, but her hairdresser testified otherwise? Did the author interview the hairdresser or is that from a court document?

The citation is the proof that you didn't make something up and it is the way you allow other people to carry on investigative citizen journalism. I am not saying that adding citations makes something immutably true, but it makes it so that I can verify you aren't blowing smoke.

I also notice that, except for Patrick and GrimJim, I didn't see other people mentioned in the article commenting on it either.

Zak is strangely absent from the discussion - no audio from him, despite the article being 80% about vindicating him. He didn't tweet or comment about it, not even in his own blog AFAICT.

Maybe when they weigh in we can know more, and all my idle speculation will be useless.

I must stress, again, that, knowing little about the facts, still I absolutely sympathize with anyone who was unjustly targeted and harassed.

Quote from: DocJones on January 28, 2024, 09:19:22 AM
Weird how almost everyone mentioned in that article is a mentally ill sexual deviant.

You're not wrong, and it's impossible to dismiss as mere coincidence.

Quote from: Fheredin on January 28, 2024, 05:20:00 PM
I don't actually think this article was written by "Clio Belle Weisman."

But you don't actually know that.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 29, 2024, 10:35:56 AM
I didn't see other people mentioned in the article commenting on it either.

The only thing they can do is confirm/deny the quotes/recordings are authentic. However any comment will be seen as promoting the editorial, any confirmation interpreted as an endorsement of Zak, and if they haven't denied anything by now it's likely they can't. And it's hard to get a response out when so many fora are blocking any mention of the Z.

I guarantee this is a topic de facto in their echo chambers and whisper networks though.

Olivia (née David) Hill has also confirmed the existence of Dr Weisman and attempted to deflect by flapping about ethics and violated trust.
Which doesn't suggest any of it isn't true, of course, and just distracts.
There's also a lot of trolling and disinfo going on, but it's hard to tell what might be organised and what is just opportunism.
The audio has been confirmed as genuine and the voices of the people claimed by multiple sources. Can't say who, but it's enough for me to see it as genuine.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 29, 2024, 08:00:47 AM
(I'm playing the "internet detective" game again, I have no particular information about this case)

Patrick Stuart apparently has confirmed talking to this person; so this is probably a real person, as Patrick is portrayed in a negative light in the article, IMO.

https://twitter.com/pjamesstuart/status/1751884833867890952

What is her relationship to the people mentioned in the article remains a mystery. Why only 15 minutes - TEN SECONDS for Patrick - were shown also remains unsolved.

One possibility is that the article is TRUE, but the motives are FALSE. Yes, this is not an "academic work", but an actual investigation to gather evidence against these people, for whatever motive (vindication, litigation, repairing of reputations).

That would explain lots of things, including the number of people that are eager to believe/broadcast the contents and the number of people that are suspicious of the format/motives.

Also explains why it only shows the most damming audios; the rest of the conversation might be interesting for "academic" purposes, but doesn't accomplish the goal of painting these people in a negative light.

Without hearing the conversations, I would bet they were "fishing expeditions": let people talk until you give them enough rope to hang themselves.

For those without a twatter or blocked:

Quote
pjamesstuart
@pjamesstuart
Haven't read the article & don't want to. Did speak to Weisman long ago. Disappointed she got sucked into the Zak-Hole. My opinion on Zak has not changed. Every day I spend not thinking about that maniac is a victory. Never speak to Journalists or Academics, I certainly won't be.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 29, 2024, 10:35:56 AM
I also notice that, except for Patrick and GrimJim, I didn't see other people mentioned in the article commenting on it either.

Zak is strangely absent from the discussion - no audio from him, despite the article being 80% about vindicating him. He didn't tweet or comment about it, not even in his own blog AFAICT.

Yes, that is very strange and not like Zak would normally act, isn't it? I've already shared my theory on my livestream.

Here's everything you really need to know about #twatgate :
#dnd #osr #ttrpg

https://www.youtube.com/live/lTFQNcCIugU?si=PT4xR4XqyWNGwRc8&t=4350

Including a comment by Zak

https://jrients.blogspot.com/2024/01/egghead-reports-research-weirdos-pissed.html?m=1

This is a goddamn soap opera plot and needs to be a Telonovela on Univision...

Quote from: Coffeecup on January 30, 2024, 04:32:31 PM
Including a comment by Zak

https://jrients.blogspot.com/2024/01/egghead-reports-research-weirdos-pissed.html?m=1

Reading Hill's meltdown, one guy already deleted his twatter account, sadly can't be archived, but I got screenshots of everything so far from Hill and the other guy who hasn't deleted his account.

So, the article IS real, the suspects participated in it and did what they admited doing.

There's increasing evidence that Clio Weisman really was involved, and that she really did make the premise, at least, of doing a study. Apparently, IF "Olivia" Hill can be believed, Clio did lie to them about her academic credentials (saying she was at Columbia when she was not). On a side note, its clear that there's something serious going on with Clio's professional activities, in that she left Columbia, then went to UNReno, but lasted only around a year there, and now seems to be living with her parents in Oregon and trying to get low-level psychotherapist work there while apparently doing academic work nowhere. So there could be other reasons, but looking at it on paper, it has all the look of a massive downward spiral, like the kind of things caused by stuff like academic scandals, or drug problems or having become involved in some fucked up relationship.

Also, we already know Clio has no issue with using deceptive methods in their research (I'm willing to believe Hill on this one at least, because I'm pretty sure that if Clio had been honest Hill would never have kept talking). Also, that they have no issue with using their research to do a "gotcha" article. And that Clio takes a completely non-objective 100% favorable view of Zak S.

That last point is still the biggest mystery: does Clio have prior experience with Zak? Do they know each other before/outside RPGs, was Clio already a gamer? Or involved in the art or porn fields? Or has she come to have some kind of relationship with Zak (game-master, friend, sex partner, etc) after initially meeting/interviewing him?
Any honest academic would want to reveal any and all personal relationships or connections they have with any potential subject. Hell, I make a point of mentioning any time I do a review of a Bedrock product I had nothing to do with, that Bedrock published one of my games like 12 years ago.

Because what hasn't changed is that it is VERY CLEAR, unquestionably so, that the real purpose of this article (as it is EIGHTY PERCENT of its content) was not primarily about condemning these woke cunts or to expose the toxic culture they created, but rather to act as Pro-Zak Propaganda to try yet again to reintegrate him into the hobby he's now marginalized from.
And don't get me wrong, there's good arguments for the Anathema declaration against being bullshit and hugely unjust, and that therefore the people who banned him forever or even mention or his name or products should be prompted to reverse course. But I HATE when someone presents me an INFOMERCIAL and tries to tell me its a News Report. This was a Zak S Infomercial, the Zak Smith Story Lifetime Special, masquerading as an objective academic study. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence that the people behind this thought anyone would fall for this, especially with how badly it was done.