Zak Smith removed from D&D credits, Frank Mentzer removed from GaryCon Guest of Honor list.

[Gorbacz]

Welp, it seems like XXI century has caught up on to some of the slimeballs within the hobby. After repeated accounts of sexual harassment and abuse gained traction WotC decided to remove Zak Smith from 5e rulebook credits. Zak was (in)famous for his "D&D with Porn Stars" video series, reverence for old school high lethality gaming and being a goth creep at a point where being a goth creep has long quit being cool.

In other news, Luke Gygax and the GaryCon staff made the decision to remove the renowned author and game designer Frank Mentzer from GaryCon guest list. As far as I understand, sexual harassment was also the issue at hand here.

[captain yesterday]

Yay for progress!!

[Fumarole]

Am I the only one here uncomfortable with making someone an unperson? Denying history is the surest way to ensure one doesn't learn from mistakes and grow as a person (or in this case, a company). By all means, stop working with someone or cancel future collaboration if their behavior is unacceptable, but this? I don't know, it just doesn't sit right with me. The precedent for this is troubling.

[Freehold DM]

...I liked d&d with porn stars...if not for it. I would not have made the acquaintance of some suicide girls a few cons ago.

[Rysky]

Fumarole wrote:

Denying history is the surest way to ensure one doesn't learn from mistakes and grow as a person

Which is in no way what is occurring with this. A person is getting their credits removed, what they did is not being covered up (anymore).

Quote:

The precedent for this is troubling.

The Slippery Slop Fallacy is a fallacy for a rason, in this case A person is getting their trophy takin away basically, history isn't being rewritten.

[captain yesterday]

In my mind, the bigger development is Frank Mentzer getting the boot from GaryCon.

The guy is notorious for being a lecherous creep, it's about time someone looked past his resume.

[Alzrius]

Rysky wrote:

Which is in no way what is occurring with this. A person is getting their credits removed, what they did is not being covered up (anymore).

Removing their credit covers up that they were involved. Whatever contribution that individual made was and is part of the final product; removing the acknowledgment of that accomplishes nothing except to deny that they were ever part of the process, which is disingenuous.

Quote:

The Slippery Slop Fallacy is a fallacy for a rason, in this case A person is getting their trophy takin away basically, history isn't being rewritten.

You need to educate yourself regarding the non-fallacious usage of the slippery slope argument. Acknowledging that someone contributed to a particular work is not a "trophy." It's a proper accounting of who did what, and that isn't something that should be obscured or denied. Facts remain facts even when they're uncomfortable or inconvenient.

[Gorbacz]

Look, the guy is a sleazy creep. The sooner we forget he exists, the better. The less his name is associated with the hobby, the better.

Having your name on The World's Best Roleplaying Game is a trophy. Getting that trophy taken away is a just vindication for being an a-hole. You might disagree and believe that lawful credit for work takes precedence, well, you need your ethical priorities re-examined.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Look, the guy is a sleazy creep. The sooner we forget he exists, the better. The less his name is associated with the hobby, the better.

I don't disagree with any of that. I simply don't believe those are the most important considerations where obscuring proper attribution is concerned.

Quote:

Having your name on The World's Best Roleplaying Game is a trophy.

Not when it's receiving proper credit for work that was done. That's simply correctly citing who did what.

Quote:

Getting that trophy taken away is a just vindication for being an a-hole. You might disagree and believe that lawful credit for work takes precedence, well, you need your ethical priorities re-examined.

I disagree. The manipulation of information regarding work done strikes me as highly unethical, no matter what the person in question might have otherwise done or how much you dislike them.

[GeraintElberion]

I’ve heard the FM stuff before. Gross.

What did ZS do?

[Gorbacz]

GeraintElberion wrote:

I’ve heard the FM stuff before. Gross.

What did ZS do?

Apparently, he's been abusing the vast majority of women he has managed to get himself involved with.

Speaking of WotC, while I don't find erasing Zak's credits ethically wrong, it's the fact that Mike Mearls got him to work on the book knowing what reputation ZS has is what troubles me. But then again, the hobby has changed massively during the last 5 years, and the "oh, c'mom, it's just Zak, you know him" defense is finally becoming inefficient

[Rysky]

Alzrius wrote:

Removing their credit covers up that they were involved. Whatever contribution that individual made was and is part of the final product; removing the acknowledgment of that accomplishes nothing except to deny that they were ever part of the process, which is disingenuous.

No. A glorified beta tester got their name removed from the thanks section, a sign of prestige was removed.

Quote:

You need to educate yourself regarding the non-fallacious usage of the slippery slope argument.

I am well aware of non-fallacious use of the slippery slope, but this is not the case here. The poster that brought it up did so in the context that "we wouldn't learn from our mistakes and grow as a person" which... has absolutely nothing to do with removing a trophy from an abuser. Thus a slippery slope.

There's nothing to learn by leaving his credit in, whereas a valid message is sent by having it removed for being a horrible person.

[Alzrius]

Rysky wrote:

No. A glorified beta tester got their name removed from the thanks section, a sign of prestige was removed.

The heading under which his name was listed is "Additional consultation provided by" and does not include a statement of thanks. The attribution of prestige is therefore dubious at best; what isn't dubious is that proper attribution is being given for services rendered.

Quote:

I am well aware of non-fallacious use of the slippery slope, but this is not the case here.

I don't believe that you are familiar with the non-fallacious usage, hence why you presented that argument as though it had no other aspects besides being a fallacy. Awareness of its other dimensions would have called for a more nuanced statement, instead of dismissing that type of argument altogether without examining if its legitimate uses potentially applied here.

Quote:

The poster that brought it up did so in the context that "we wouldn't learn from our mistakes and grow as a person" which... has absolutely nothing to do with removing a trophy from an abuser. Thus a slippery slope.

This line of reasoning is predicated on thinking that proper attribution of work done is a "trophy," which is not correct.

Quote:

There's nothing to learn by leaving his credit in, whereas a valid message is sent by having it removed for being a horrible person.

A more valid message is that it's wrong to cease crediting someone for work that they performed simply because you no longer wish to be associated with them. That doesn't require any fears that such an action may lead to bad consequences (which is the core of the slippery slope argument), because the action is ethically wrong unto itself.

[Gorbacz]

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad female trumpet archons.

Seriously, that took me a bloody MINUTE. I was expecting a proper challenge.

[Rysky]

Alzrius wrote:

The heading under which his name was listed is "Additional consultation provided by"

I couldn't remember if it was that or special thanks or the like.

Quote:

I don't believe that you are familiar with the non-fallacious usage, hence why you presented that argument as though it had no other aspects besides being a fallacy.

I am aware, the "issue" they raised was a fallacy, not a valid concern.

Quote:

Awareness of its other dimensions would have called for a more nuanced statement, instead of dismissing that type of argument altogether without examining if its legitimate uses potentially applied here.

I did examine the concern put forth before commenting, it was not legitimate.

Quote:

This line of reasoning is predicated on thinking that proper attribution of work done is a "trophy," which is not correct.

Having your name in the Core Rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons is indeed a trophy.

Quote:

A more valid message is that it's wrong to cease crediting someone for work that they performed simply because you no longer wish to be associated with them.

If that was the sole message being put forth then maybe. But the core message being put forth is this horrible person no longer gets to point to this accolade. Everyone was very much aware he was stripped of it.

Quote:

because the action is ethically wrong unto itself.

It is not, if you are a horrible person you suffer consequences for it.

[Rysky]

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad female trumpet archons.

That's gonna be a yikes from me.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad females.

Why would we want to refrain from that? Those jokes are funny! Certainly more so than by making a transphobic statement like "I have balls" when listing your gender, as if gender was a matter of physical sex.

Also, thanks for directing attention toward my blog! I'm quite happy for the extra clicks! :D

Quote:

Seriously, that took me a bloody MINUTE. I was expecting a proper challenge.

The fact that you think you've found something damning here is honestly amusing. I'll presume that you don't understand that humor isn't meant to be taken literally, and note that you have no such explanation for your comment.

Seriously though, when you display prejudice and bigotry in your own profile, you really want to be the last person throwing stones.

Talk about not being much of a challenge. ;D

[Alzrius]

Rysky wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad female trumpet archons.

That's gonna be a yikes from me.

Sex-negative people tend to have that reaction. But I'm sure you'll be even more horrified about Gorbacz's transphobic comments.

[Gorbacz]

Alzrius wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad females.

Why would we want to refrain from that? Those jokes are funny! Certainly more so than by making a transphobic statement like "I have balls" when listing your gender, as though gender is a matter of physical sex.

Also, thanks for directing attention toward my blog! I'm quite happy for the extra clicks! :D

They're not. They're childish, immature and honestly creepy. And the fact that your only defense is whataboutism talks volumes about your insecurity.

[Alzrius]

Rysky wrote:

I couldn't remember if it was that or special thanks or the like.

The more important question being if you find that salient at all now that your misremembering has been corrected.

Quote:

I am aware, the "issue" they raised was a fallacy, not a valid concern.

Regarding the possibility of potential unintended consequences, I don't believe that you examined the potential for that before you dismissed it. If so, you certainly didn't speak to it in your initial statement.

Quote:

I did examine the concern put forth before commenting, it was not legitimate.

And yet you didn't speak to that examination at the time, instead suggesting that the slippery slope argument unto itself was invalid, rather than any particular application of it here.

Quote:

Having your name in the Core Rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons is indeed a trophy.

Stating your opinion as if it were a fact does not make it a fact. Observe: "Having your name in the Core Rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons is not a trophy."

But that's secondary to the fact that presumptions of prestige are less notable than the ethical dimension involved in utilizing someone's contributions - however large or small they may be - without giving them proper credit for it.

Quote:

If that was the sole message being put forth then maybe. But the core message being put forth is this horrible person no longer gets to point to this accolade. Everyone was very much aware he was stripped of it.

Such a thing could potentially be viewed as ethically laudable, but that does not erase the ethical infraction that comes from refusing to give proper credit to people for the work that they do. Nor can we suggest that the good justifies the bad, because we hold that positive ends do not justify unethical means used to achieve them.

Quote:

It is not, if you are a horrible person you suffer consequences for it.

That does not justify doing something unethical in order to punish someone for their own bad behavior.

[Alzrius]

Gorbacz wrote:

Alzrius wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Well, at least we're all adult people who can refrain from making "she can blow my trumpet all day" jokes when they see artwork of scantily clad females.

Why would we want to refrain from that? Those jokes are funny! Certainly more so than by making a transphobic statement like "I have balls" when listing your gender, as though gender is a matter of physical sex.

Also, thanks for directing attention toward my blog! I'm quite happy for the extra clicks! :D

They're not. They're childish, immature and honestly creepy. And the fact that your only defense is whataboutism talks volumes about your insecurity.

I disagree, and find your overbearing attempt at being a moral authority regarding the inherently subjective nature of humor to be highly disingenuous, particularly given how it's transparent that you're trying to deflect from your own transphobic comments.

[captain yesterday]

Well, that got weird.

Since we're sharing insecurities, I sometimes worry my kids won't think I'm cool.

[TOZ]

Yep, this is gonna get firebombed post haste.