Wednesday, June 12, 2019

I'm Suing

On the morning of June 11, 2019 I had one of my lawyers file a defamation claim against Mandy with the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa for her Facebook post (CV-19-00080461-0000 - Ottawa Cour Supérieure de Justice). What we say there matches what I've said all along: the various allegations in her Facebook post are false.

If you're wondering why it took so long, it was because I was making sure I tried everything else first to reverse the harassment campaign Mandy launched: I put out statements from witnesses and evidence disproving her claims, people familiar with the case took on the accusations all over the internet, Mandy's own family even sent letters to the companies that had sanctioned me saying that Mandy wasn't telling the truth, and the witnesses made themselves available to the public to be questioned. Especially within the game community, those responsible for spreading Mandy's false accusations ignored the evidence, actively took steps to cut off communication and refused to investigate. Litigation was the only effective option left.

Since there will likely be some response to this announcement on the internet, here's a note of legal advice: When Mandy's initial attack post came out in February, many folks (especially gamers) repeated her accusations--and piled on others. If anyone does that again now, months later, it only makes it easier to sue them for defamation than it already is.

Also, repeating easily-disproved statements that show you didn't do any research ("Zak is a trust fund baby"  etc.) likewise makes it easier to establish in court that you didn't make any good-faith attempt to check your facts before making a public attack.



  1. Good for you. Everyone deserves their day in court.

  2. How much are you seeking? Who else are you suing?

    1. send questions to zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm -- its easier if i can answer them all in one place

    2. Sorry to barge in, might be completely offtopic but I tried to use the old "hawtmayle" address twice already (last time was like one hour before posting here) and I keep getting:

      ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
      (reason: 550 5.5.0 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable.

      I just wanted to ask if there is a way to reach you (mostly to share links and/or discuss RPG mini-projects) - G+ is dead, your profile on MeWe does not seem to be "live".

      (Alternatively I can just post under D&D with pornstars like I have done recently, let me know - also feel free to delete this message if you want).

    3. try again and screencap the error message if it doesn't work

  3. Nothing says "I'm a good person who doesn't abuse women" like someone badmouthing and suing their ex-wife.

    You're never getting back the good-will you've burned because people thought you were shitty even before this came to light. You honestly would have done better by yourself and everyone else if you just gave a proper apology and reparation.

    1. In the long run, it serves no-one to apologize for something you didn't do.

      I'm not going to lie about something this important just to calm some nerds down or sell them books. The truth matters even when it's inconvenient, Aura.

      And, yeah, telling the truth causes arguments and difficulties--you have to do it anyway.

    2. The truth matters even when it's inconvenient, says the guy deleting things against him, and who's demonstrably lied about things he's done before.

    3. I am deleting misinformation and harassment--as any responsible person would.

      'Demonstrably lying"? You're saying that happened but you're not offering any proof and you're not putting yourself in a position where you would be held accountable if it turns out you're wrong.

    4. Come to think of it-- I'm trying to remember--weren't you the gamer who actually said you would not apologize for your behavior in this situation even if it turned out the accusations weren't true?

    5. Ok, it's hard to keep y'all straight. So:

      1. If they are, will you apologize?

      2. And: 'Demonstrably lying"? You're saying that happened but you're not offering any proof and you're not putting yourself in a position where you would be held accountable if it turns out you're wrong.

    6. 1. I mean, that depends on what you're claiming I should apologize for. I'm definitely not going to apologize for thinking you're a bad person because I thought so prior to this whole incident, etc.

      2. Okay Shannon Applecline

    7. 1. Why?

      2. Say what I was "demonstrably lying" about, then prove I lied. Cite sources, etc.

    8. I'm absolutely under no obligation whatsoever to apologize for or justify my personal opinion of your moral character and/or likeability to my sensibilities. And enough people have documented your exploits that Patrick has literal timeline posts. I don't owe you anything.

    9. Then, to repeat: you are not being accountable.

      Everyone who makes accusations is 100% under a moral obligation to substantiate those accusations.

      And because y'all continuously pull that card ("It's my right to snipe from cover!") when asked for proof or accountability and literally always do that and think that's ok and normal, none of y'all realize how thin all this is.

      The women who have come forward to protest Mandy's abuses have signed their names and made themselves legally accountable for what they say under penalty of perjury. You can't even say what your beef is under cover of a pseudonym and a cartoon avatar.

    10. @aura

      Harassing comments get erased. If you can answer the questions you've been asked: answer.

      If not: apologize for wasting the time of anyone who bothered to read them.

  4. I dont know the truth but I do know everyone deserves their day in court. My ex and I went through a nasty divorce. All sorts of terrible things were said about me, I had to move, change my phone number, delete social media, etc.

    It's been 5 years. Her family chose me in the divorce and shes currently in jail for her numerous death threats and harrassment campaign against me.

    As rare as people may believe it is...I work in the medical field...100% of the men I know in this work have been wrongfully accused...its why there are cameras everywhere and they wont examine you in a room alone. It's not for your protection. It's for theirs. False allegations happened.

    To be clear...I'm not saying that's what happened here (I dont know either parties and only Mr. Smith has offered any actual evidence to his side of the story) but I can certainly empathize with someone trying to clear their name after the allegations are made.

  5. So who else are you suing for defamation? Me? Skerples? All of the dozens of other bloggers & writers who've disavowed you? /everybody?/

    Surely you understand that you can't salvage your reputation at this point.

    1. Questions go to zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm

      As for my reputation: I don't see why not. There's no plausible way this scenario can end without lots of people admitting I did nothing wrong.

      Many people have never been accused of wrongdoing, very few have it proven repeatedly via legal inquiry--I will come out looking far more innocent than most people start out.

    2. Mandy's literally disavowing incidents she initiated, and that ended only when she wanted them to, incidents which she gleefully bragged about and that lots of people witnessed. In some cases her and her friends claims are legitmately physically impossible.

      Claiming that some terrible truth about me will emerge just proves you haven't looked very carefully at her claims or the context provided.

      This is the problem with sensitive topics: the details are often so icky that people flinch from examining the details carefully enough to notice the bullshit.

  6. Crazy that you'd hold others to different standards to your own.

    1. I don't--if you have an example: present it.

      Otherwise you may apologize at your leisure for now.

  7. Alright, here's a question:

    As I'm sure you're aware, under Canadian law (under which this will be heard), the burden of proof in defamation cases lies with the defendant. That is to say the person being accused of lying must provide positive evidence that their claims are true. These laws been subject to serious criticism for making it nigh-impossible to prove claims of domestic and/or emotional abuse. I'm no expert in evidence law, so I can't say what does or does not count as evidence. However, given that everything I have seen is your word against Mandy's, such a case would favour you, the plaintiff, unless she has some surprising shit.

    My question is (rather, questions are): does this process seem fair to you? Do you believe a judge finding in your favour means you have been truthful? Conversely, do you believe a legal ruling that insufficient evidence to substantiate Mandy's claims is the same as her knowingly spreading falsehoods?

    1. First, if you claim "everything I have seen is your word against Mandy's," then you're not paying attention to any of this. There's tons of evidence pertaining to every claim beyond that posted on this very blog speaking directly to each part of her accusations.

      Until you've discussed that, I feel like answering the rest of what you've said would be pointless, since it seems like you're not reading what I write.

      So if you are serious and are taking the accusations seriously: address that.

    2. I gotta ask Alex, do you think its more fair if Zak has to prove his innocence rather than Mandy prove her claim? Both have problems, but she's Canadian in Canada so that is the law it gets heard under. This is all awful, but everyone deserves their day in court and I am not going to pretend I don't know how people going through divorces can be when they've grown to despise their spouse. Parents literally kill their own children to spite their spouse so I am not going to pretend "lying about serious topics that hurts other people in real trouble" is impossible. Don't take this for a defense, as "successful artist abuses women he dates" is also far from unheard of.

    3. @second guy: my question is whether this process constitutes a) justice in any meaningful sense and b) whether is actually holds any truth value beyond giving Zak the benefit of the doubt.

      @Zak: please point me to actual evidence that isn't you saying things or people you know saying things. I've kept up as best I could but there's a lot to go through.

    4. Also @second guy "everyone deserves their day in court" is a truism, not an ethical argument.

    5. Sorry to spam - also @Zak to pre-empt Mandy's dad not counting as "someone you know" I don't consider him more credible than anyone else who's spoken on the matter - parent-child relationships are rarely simple and I have no idea what kind of person he is or what kind of relationship he has with his daughter, nor do I know enough about him to consider anything he would tell me now to be more trustworthy than anything you would.

    6. You're moving the goal posts.

      "People I know saying things" counts as something other than "my word against Mandy's". That's what you said, quote: "everything I have seen is your word against Mandy's".

      Do you have any idea what it's like to have a casual acquaintance you've only ever known as a vaguely friendly face with some interests in common treat such an important question so casually?

      This is serious shit: I don't feel it's unfair to ask you, if you're going to comment, to speak precisely and to at least try to think carefully.

      The documents provided include:

      Mandy's word (as of 2019)
      My word
      Documents containing Mandy's completely contradictory words (2007-2017)
      Mandy's parent's words
      Mandy's best friends' words (signed under penalty of perjury)
      Mandy's lovers' words (signed under penalty of perjury)

      Plus there several fact assertions which make Mandy et al's claims impossible (like, say, how did I "force" Viv to move to Detroit? Given the facts, how is Mandy not guilty of multiple assaults on Viv and Jennifer? Given Jennifer's claims, why did Jennifer repeatedly cross oceans and continents to have threeways with me? ) which I know you never bothered to ask the other side about.

      If one person says they're on fire and the other person says they're not you don't finish with "Oh it's your word against theirs" and throw up your hands. You have go ask the person who claims to be on fire "If you're on fire how come you aren't dead yet?"

      As for where this evidence is: it's in that link I gave you. If you didn't read it al the way, consider how serious all of this is before speed-reading again.

    7. As for the general point of legal action -- look at the shape of the gamer harassment campaign that the accusations launched:

      In the days that followed Mandy's accusations, it was as if every gamer online was in a contest to see who could dismiss any objection in the most stylish way, each playing to their own audiences.

      You point out any of the gaping problems in the story (Mandy initiated sex every time we had it, for instance), you get:

      4chan people responding with absurdist memes playing to their 4chan friends, Indie gamers responding with "Ugh gross, why would I want to hear from you???" for =hugs, you're so brave!= from their indie gamer friends, Something Awful trolls quote-tweeting and going "lol this guy expects us to care" playing to their Something Awful friends, OSR people launching pyrotechnic displays of disgust at having to read at all as if you're lecturing them about a rules nitpick, fake activists responding with ALL CAPS SCREAMING ABOUT how you have no compassion, forum bosses responding with immediate bans so all the members could pat each other on the back about how *they* hadn't been banned yet, minor game designers trying to spin any response as a publicity stunt, etc.

      In a court--any court, Canada, US, UK, New Zealand, whatever--you can't do that. You have to actually answer the question. You have to at least pretend you care about the crime you're pretending happened.

      If you wonder why someone would resort to that: look around. If gamers knew how to respond to questions about guilt and innocence and evil in the world and human lives being ruined with something other than all caps crying or lol! memes! and then translating those responses into justifications to harass the supposed villain then maybe there'd be no need to resort to any other venue or authority.

      But that's not how this works: even as you read this answer, there's likely someone trying to figure out how to spin a person accused asking for the unbelievably serious and real accusations about them to be *actually seriously and really investigated* being spun as some childish cry for attention. So we're going to court.

    8. I've taken some time to review your evidence and Mandy's evidence. Here's the thing: at the end of the day, these are a lot of people I don't know, whose wider stakes in the issue I can't know without doubt, speaking on a relationship that by all indications is far too messy and complex for me to understand. In any case there is nothing incontrovertible, or which eliminates all but the remotest possibility of doubt outside the legal context. (Word under oath is still word, after all, and we've all seen our fair share of lies under oath in the last few years.) Here I am holding you to the same standard of proof to which Mandy will be held in court. That is: while she will be asked to prove that her representations of you are strictly factual - to provide incontrovertible evidence that the things she claimed actually happens, which without having planted secret cameras in your home approaches impossibility - whereas all you have to do is demonstrate that she made claims about things where there is room for doubt.

      So, a ruling in your favour doesn't actually prove you didn't do the things she claims you did - it merely shows that Mandy was not able to meet an exacting legal definition of proof. The gist of my question earlier was: why should I or anyone take such a ruling as proof positive that you are not the person she says you are, when all it does is indicate a profound ambiguity through the lens of a legal framework which, I repeat, has been heavily criticized as antiquated and biased in favour of the plaintiff? How, in other words, does suing her constitute grounds for trusting you, even if you win?

    9. Answer and a question:

      1. You do not have to regard that as proof positive. You can instead choose to investigate further.

      2. There is a third option: Admit you don't know and don't care enough to investigate.

      If "at the end of the day, these are a lot of people I don't know, whose wider stakes in the issue I can't know without doubt, speaking on a relationship that by all indications is far too messy and complex for me to understand."

      Then why in god's fucking holy name are you commenting on this at all?

      You've repeatedly attacked me since this began, despite just admitting you have no idea what's going on.

      Saying "I don't know so I'll shut up" is an acceptable and honorable position--even for nerds. Why not take that position ?

    10. I'm not taking that position because I think what you're doing is cruel and constitutes an unnecessary escalation. You seem to suggest that this lawsuit is meant to stand as proof to the wider of community of "nerds", which I guess includes me, that you are not the person Mandy says you are -- which is why I am here questioning that motive and the relationship between it and a deeply flawed legal proceeding.

      As for "investigating further" - I am not a private investigator and am not about to contacting a bunch of people I've barely heard of for more commentary on a situation where no amount of talking can resolve the ambiguity. That is a waste of my time and theirs. If you think you have something better and more decisive than what you've produced and actually care about the opinions of people on the internet, and not about forcing a painful and expensive legal proceeding upon your ex, I'd say you should share it now, but I doubt your lawyers would consider that wise.

      In short: I do not believe I could resolve the ambiguity in this matter even if I devoted all my time to it, and I doubt it in fact can be resolved. You claim to be out to establish the truth but I don't see how you're going to get it, nor do I see any endgame here that isn't about revenge.

    11. 1. How am I "escalating" from "smearing someone with fake assault accusations"?

      That's already nuclear. A civil suit is a very mild response.

      As for unnecessarily: Then what would be the _appropriate_ response?

      2. "You seem to suggest that this lawsuit is meant to stand as proof to the wider of community of "nerds""

      I don't suggest that at all.

      I don't , in general, try to "suggest" things. It's vague. I state.

      Here's what I'm stating:

      The legal action will stand as proof only to good people and to the Canadian legal system. So far as I know, vocal online nerds occupy neither of these positions.

      3. If you don't see an "endgame" then why don't you *ask*?

      The endgame is: create accountability for bad actors.

      When a burglar is locked up it's not all about revenge, it's alot about preventing further burglaries.

    12. You have a simple problem of circular logic:

      Your claim it's ok to attack me is based on your assumption this legal action is "unnecessary" or "cruel".

      That assumption is in turn based on the assumption the false accusations are true. Therefore discovering the facts is unnecessary--you already know what you need to.

      Yet you also admit you don't actually know if they're true.

      So none of what you're saying makes sense.

    13. I erased your answer

      You didn't answer the questions you were asked.

      No further responses will be accepted until you show good faith and do that.

    14. Oh man, I spent a while writing that answer too. Luckily I had a screenshot just in case. Here it is:

      So as to the questions I missed: an appropriate response would be, I suppose, what you were doing before the lawsuit - attempting as best you could to clear your name publicly. Certainly you wouldn't convince everyone. In any case, this lawsuit doesn't promise to prove anything you hadn't tried to prove elsewhere. The facts in such conflicts are difficult and sometimes hard or impossible to prove without a doubt - suing does not change that.

      I'm not sure what other questions I might be missing, besides why I don't shut up, given that I don't have perfect knowledge of the situation: my reason for that is I think your claims that suing will help you get at the truth of the matter are misleading. I think people following this ought to know that this lawsuit is not one that is concerned with whether you did anything wrong. Rather, the judge's job is to determine, in court, whether Mandy's claims meet legal muster, which is not the same question as whether they constitute an accurate representation of actual events.

    15. Address these:

      1. "attempting as best you could to clear your name publicly"

      Given that I was repeatedly harassed while doing this and unfairly blocked from all venues where this was possible, this course of action proved impossible.

      I note you did nothing to prevent this outcome.

      What do you recommend then?

      2. " I think your claims that suing will help you get at the truth of the matter are misleading. I"

      I have not made these claims. The truth of the matter is already there for any good person. the lawsuit will simply reinforce them for neutral parties who might not be paying attention.

    16. 1. It's really not on me to make your decisions for you. I think giving it time and patience, and pursuing gradual steps forward based on respect and reciprocity would reflect much more favourably on you and your character, even if they were also slower.

      2. So then, are you saying the lawsuit is in fact not meant to prove anything? If the lawsuit is purely meant to be punitive, it seems inconsistent to suggest it should also serve to "reinforce" the truth for the unconvinced. Unless you want to argue these proceedings can objectively verify the facts of the matter beyond pointing out areas where the facts are too murky to decide, there is no reason they should sway anyone interested in finding out what actually happened.

    17. To clarify my characterization in 2. about the lawsuit being punitive: you said earlier that "[t]he endgame is: create accountability for bad actors." In other words, your aim here is to make bad actors accountable for misrepresenting you by seeking punitive action via the legal system.

    18. "To clarify my characterization in 2. about the lawsuit being punitive: you said earlier that "[t]he endgame is: create accountability for bad actors." In other words, your aim here is to make bad actors accountable for misrepresenting you by seeking punitive action via the legal system."

      No this is not an entirely accurate description of my position or aims. When the public becomes aware of the truth (via legal action in this case) they can also elect to create consequences for bad actors without recourse to the legal system (boycotting the people who lied, for instance).

      And this action need not even be punitive: a simple apology is an acceptable moment of accountability. There is no need to punish someone for a mistake they admit and take steps to fix.

      You should ask more questions and not make so many assumptions--it is repeatedly leading you to false conclusions.

    19. 1." I think giving it time and patience, and pursuing gradual steps forward based on respect and reciprocity"

      You must say what these are.

      If you can't, then you are admitting you actually are scolding me for a course of action you can't improve on.

      1b. "would reflect much more favourably on you and your character, "

      Only in the eyes of stupid people. They are not my audience. Good people recognize that justice delayed is justice denied. The longer the false narrative exists, the more it is normalized

      2. "Prove things to Alex" and "Punitive" are not the only options.

      Lawsuits mean more facts come out. Accusers will be asked questions and it will be shown they have no answers. The truth will be publicized. This will reinforce the narrative all good people paying attention already accept (I did nothing wrong) and bring it to the attention of previously neutral parties.

    20. Sometimes maintaining the course and waiting for things to cool down is ther better course. I am not an expert on conflict resolution - though those people do exist and the cost of their services are comparable to those of a litigator - but it seems that if your choices were patience and a focus on your work or escalation, he former would have been the better choice, where "better" refers to a course of action that would improve, or at least not worsen, your standing, and avoid inflicting further injury. I also do not believe in retribution as a desirable or particular effective form of justice, but we probably differ there.

      As for justice delayed/denied, you're better than truisms.

      As to the enduring existence of the narrative: if as indicated in (2) you believe the evidence that will be brought to court is sufficient to verify your claims, then I guess we'll see, though I would ask what prevented you from bringing it forward before if it really is better than what you've already showed. If you agree that a finding in your favour in trial is not the same as a validation of your claims of having done nothing wrong, a pretty extensive review of the court records will be necessary to explain your point.

    21. address these:

      1. Your first paragraph is repeating what you've already said:

      You're alleging there's some better way and you're not naming it.

      I have inflicted no injury, and winning the case will inflict no more.

      2. Justice delayed is justice denied. Calling it a truism isn't an argument for why it isn't true. The people responsible for this harassment campaign are still running around enjoying life as if they've done nothing wrong. Jsutice has not been served.

      3. I've already explained several times what is preventing the facts from coming out:

      Mandy et al made some statements.

      Me, other people, and Mandy et al in the past cited facts which make it impossible for those facts to be true.

      Mandy must be asked to explain the disparity or her claim must be discarded. The gamer community has failed to ask her or secure an answer.


      It's rather like if someone claims apples don't exist:

      Some schmoe shows up and says apples don't exist. They're an illusion.

      A scientist shows up and gives a million reasons why they do, holds up the same person claiming they do, holds up an apple and says it's real, etc.

      If people still have doubt about the existence of apples (like you) the only possible next step is to ask the original schmoe to explain away all these facts.

      The gamer community refuses to compel Mandy to explain anything, so legal action is necessary.

      "Is this man your father, Mandy? Is he in a Secret Abuser Society with Zak?" etc.

    22. The longer harassers run around uncaught, the more harm they can do. So there's a real problem trying to stop them slowly.

      There is conversely no downside to anyone to catching them quickly.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. "As for my reputation: I don't see why not. There's no plausible way this scenario can end without lots of people admitting I did nothing wrong.

    Many people have never been accused of wrongdoing, very few have it proven repeatedly via legal inquiry--I will come out looking far more innocent than most people start out."

    Consider the situation - male former sex worker with steady income is accused of abuse by former partner, also a former sex worker with chronic illness and no personal funds to draw on. Large numbers of people come to her support, other victims/accusers come forward, and previous potential bad behaviour is evaluated in light of this new information. In response, man sues the chronically ill woman in an attempt to silence her, using laws that are notorious for being used in such a way, then threatens to additionally sue anyone who states they believe her.

    You can understand how for most people these actions will not elicit sympathy for the man's situation or person, yes?
    Could you perhaps explain why you believe that suing those accusing you of abuse into silence will convince those who believe you are an abuser you are innocent?

    1. I didn't say "convince", I said "prove".

      Evolution is real and Donald Trump lies all the time, those things are facts--it doesn't mean you are going to convince every American to believe it.

      I can only address the fact-based community--everyone else is-, and has always been-, far beyond my area of concern.

      Lots of people in the gamer world want to believe fairy tales--it's up to the better, smarter people to either ignore them or create consequences for them.

    2. I see, while I thank you for that perspective, you haven't really answered my question.

      I have some others though so that's fine.

      Do you expect OSR and other RPG content creators to take this court case as proof that Mandy was lying and to begin working with you again? Or are they beyond your area of concern?

      Do you think that Canadian defamation laws are a quality method for establishing facts and proof?

    3. 1. Please say how I haven't answered your question--asking it again in a different way may make it easier to understand whatever part you think I missed. I won't publish or answer any further comments from you unless you do this because there's no benefit in half-conversations or letting people talk past each other.

      2. "Do I expect OSR creators...etc?"

      I don't expect much either way.

      3. "Do you think that Canadian defamation laws are a quality method for establishing facts and proof?"

      I don't know, but I think any remotely rigorous investigation is going to be more revealing than what we've had so far, which is:

      One side talks, the other side is ignored and pushed out of the conversation because of conspiracy theories.

      In any court, at the bare minimum, both sides will have to answer questions.

      There are lots of ways the truth can eventually come out, but they have to start with something other than "We all just sit here pretending the issue is settled."

      If you've got a better idea than legal action, let me know.

  10. I asked if you understood that your actions were unlikely to make people sympathetic to you and what you expect to happen in the result of you being successful in sueing.

    My suggestion is that if you do not expect OSR or RPG creators and artists to start working with you regardles of the result, what is the purpose of thie suit? It seems to be the harm being done by a suing a chronically ill woman with few funds is too great. An extensive court case in a country where
    defamation laws are reportedly extremely biased to the plaintiff, especially in cases where womren are sued by their male abusers
    Canadian defamation courts seem like a pretty shit way of establishing truth. And the suit is likely to be extremely harmful to Mandy

    All this looks like just more harm you're trying to do to Mandy.
    Who do you expect to prove your innocence to with this?

    1. 1. Ok, to clarify-- I don't care about their sympathies and I don't know if it will make those people more or less sympathetic. My goal is not to gain the sympathy of people of people who are unconcerned with facts.

      2. The purpose of the suit is to clarify the facts and establish as much of the truth as possible for people who care about facts and truth, and to begin the process of fixing the damage Mandy and co's harassment campaign has done.

      3. If you think this legal action is harmful, for a second time: if you can think of a less disruptive way of establishing the truth: _say what that is_ . As I said at the top of this blog entry, I spent months exploring other options. So: what is your better option?

      This is not a rhetorical question. If you don't answer I won't publish or answer any further comments from you.

      4. Who will it prove my innocence to? All good people who are paying attention.

    2. Your response was erased.

      As I said:

      "If you don't answer I won't publish or answer any further comments from you."

    3. Again, your response was erased.

      As I said:

      "If you don't answer I won't publish or answer any further comments from you."

  11. why do all my comments get deleted?

    1. You made a comment above, it got addressed, you didn't respond.

      You're not engaging, so you lose the right to comment.

    2. Comments containing misinformation, harassment, or first-strike personal attacks get deleted and your response has to actually address what you're allegedly responding to, not change the subject.

  12. Question:
    Scenario: You lose the suit. Judge looks over the case, says, "Nah, she's not lying." Are you going to accept said ruling? Will you go "Welp, I'm a rapist and an abuser." and turn yourself in to the authorities? Serious question.

    1. Of course I won't. The judge will have made a mistake and there are legal remedies for that.


      It's possible that this question is intended to lead to the follow-up question "Well if you won't accept the ruling as proof of the facts, why should we?"

      That question is based on a false premise: I don't expect y'all (you, Cavegirl, Alex Chalk etc) to accept anything. From previous questions it's obvious you are all obviously deep into confirmation bias and backfire effect.

      I expect the Canadian legal system and good people to be swayed by facts, not y'all. If the Canadian legal system says Mandy's telling the truth, it will be in contravention of al the facts, so--at worst--good people would be confused.

      But while miracles happen, there is no point in holding out hope for anyone who--at this stage--already has decided Mandy has told the truth. You might as well try to sway a creationist off course.

    2. Further clarification if you're still confused:

      Unless you are an invisible ghost or omniscient god, there is an important difference between you and I in this matter that bears on our respective moral responsibilities:

      I know what happened and you don't.

      Therefore it's my moral responsibility to make sure the truth is known, and it's your moral responsibility to either take steps to find out the truth or be silent.

      So what we need to do regarding court decisions is different:

      I need to make sure I do my best to make sure they reflect the truth

      You need to either decide you don't care and shut up or decide you do and ask if they accord with the facts you do have and whether or not (therefore) more investigation is necessary.

  13. Uh, so what happens if you turbo super-lose the case, like it goes to the supreme court and you lose, and it gets dismissed with prejudice?

    1. Since I'm not a lawyer, I haven't thought that many steps ahead.

      I will continue to find ways to make the truth known, however.

  14. Replies
    1. I'm curious about this idea that deleting comments is somehow bad.

      Hosting misinformation and harassment is always immoral and often against the law. Why are you holding up the fact I do the only responsible thing--delete these kinds of comments--as something I should be embarrassed about?

      If someone says the moon's made of green cheese and you _don't_ erase it I can see complaining, but why are you all butthurt about the concept of accuracy?

    2. (I just deleted a reply from Sarpedon containing inaccurate information)

      If you believe what you said in your deleted comment: post proof.

  15. Replies
    1. If there's harassment coming from a given site people usually send me a link and I usually follow if I have time--or sometimes people send screencaps. So of course, yeah. As lots of harassment happens there and harassers like you and Skerples openly spend time there, people send a lot of links to 4chan. They have since pretty much forever--their earliest attacks were on Mandy back in the day.

      I find it truly bizarre when people talking about game designers having looked at the site as if its significant or damning ("Daniel Fox has been here! I can PROVE it!"). I mean: it's a boring place but it's not like you have to kill a baby to get your browser to go there. If there's harassment, you need to know about it.



    4. Why would I? Even ignoring the harassment and creepy slurs, it doesn't do any of the things I value on social media.

      You can't have a fact-based conversation on 4chan, since everyone's anonymous. If one person goes "It's raining" and the other one goes "It's not", you can't go "Ok prove it's raining" because you have no idea if that first person is the one posting --and you can't get rid of them for not answering. So none of the conversations make sense or exclude noise.

      The only real purpose anyone on 4chan's ever achieved is self-promotion and they talked about my work on there long before I ever knew who they were and will only be talking about me more as the legal situation escalates.

      What would I even post there? If I don't like someone I criticize them openly, sign my name to it, defend it and I'm proud of it. I don't have a reason to do it anonymously in a place where my accusations would seem less credible.

      One of the most comforting bits of stupid floating around during all this is people claiming I post there--its a good reminder the people harassing me aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer and don't know anything about me--even the stuff that's completely out in the open.

  16. I'm not familiar with 4chan. Is it just snippets as linked above, or actual discussions? I actually don't see this getting discussed anywhere.

    1. send questions to zakzsmith AT hawtmyale dawt calm

  17. In all honesty, I'm sure you have enough on your plate and this is fairly serious business, so I'm hesitant to bother you with questions in private. I discovered all this well after the fact and its fascinating from the context of it (as far as I know) being unprecedented in gaming community. But I'm sure you'll share any developments as you see fit. Seeing as there is nowhere I'm aware of that the other side (Mandy Morbid) is posting developments, we basically have to wait till you're ready to share. Which is of course your prerogative.

    1. If you want to know answers, you should ask questions.

  18. Here's an interesting development:
    You going to sue mr Guyll?

    1. I don't really understand the kerfuffle about David Guyll--he was an open and obvious member of the online harassment mob long before this development and I said it many times.

      It'd be like discovering Skerples and Cavegirl are the same person. So what? Both of them are individually guilty to begin with.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  19. That rpgshit site seems gone now.

    Recently saw this site Your dungeon is suck. Seems mostly an anti-Zak site. Is it afilliated with the same guy?

    1. “affiliated” implies a formal connection—there isn’t one, so far as i know, but those sites and most other rpg forums come from the same culture and have the same creepy assumptions (accountability is bad, facts don’t matter, keeping members comfortable is the #1 priority, etc) so they end up the same in the end

  20. How is your litigation going?

    1. It's going. When there are more major developments they'll be reported here.

      As for the rest: You'd ignore it or claim to not believe me unless I claimed it was going poorly, so adding any more detail would be pointless.

    2. John316@bibleman.orgFebruary 25, 2020 at 1:06 PM

      We all know it's going nowhere. Lol just his usual big talk

    3. Well there will be a complete record when it's over since it's a court case.

      So what will you give me if you're wrong?

  21. Are these legal proceedings still ongoing? Seems like a long time.

    1. Yep, they're ongoing and yep its taking a long time.

      Mandy has no real defense so her lawyer's trying as hard as possible to drag things out.

      It's a simple pattern: A thing happens, then someone asks the court to do something, the court date is set for months away, that thing eventually happens,then they ask the court to do a new thing, etc etc