Zitat von BoyScout am 29. Januar 2023, 22:03 Uhr

@zak: There a some bold statements mentioned in this discussion which make it almost impossible to comment on in more detail.

Archoangel even already fulfilled Godwin's Law in his sledgehammer approach further deconstructing the pathes of choice to 1.

I don't know what's the reason for this thread (even though I read through it now), or if the comments here are of any value to you, but please note that you don't make me want to even interact any further, confirming my perspective from above. And that, I'm not sure if it's on purpose and where the gain is to you.

But you almost make it impossible not to answer even everything in me warns me not to, but you're right, of course the topic is important to you and you should be adressed directly, if necessary.

zak wrote: As soon as you make statements in a public forum, you are part of the life of the person you commented on--especially if that person is currently experiencing the complete destruction of their entire life due to random anonymous people making public statements about them.

"Part of the life of the person" can mean a lot. Or nothing. There is no basis to agree on. But I totally agree on the second part, one should more carefully choose their words. But it's often hard to assess the impact of a statement. You might find it obvious, but mistakes will and have been made.

In which way a single diffuse statement makes someone completely vile and evil to the extreme, I can't understand. It's possible. But also, it's not. So again, there is no ground to settle on.

But there is also a responsibility for the recipient to not believe every crap they read in the media. Often these people twist what they read to fit their perspective and then act on it. But "act on it" is the critical part. These people always come through innocent and that's what's depressing me.

You might think there are no consequences, no one has learned from this. But I don't agree, I think a lot of people took consequences for themselve. I also needed to learn to use the internet properly on many ocassions that don't only revolve about you, and I behave differently now. But that's not possible without making mistakes. Sometimes the price is high, and that's tragic but I don't see a way to avoid mistakes.

One has to differentiate the intentions. Lying is a completely different grade, of course. But there are a lot of discussions in the EU about self-censorship, politically defined "hate speech" and what not. But no one speaks about those who take random words of others as an excuse for their actions. As a consequence, some people think one should be silenced for all eternity on the internet when making such a mistake about not perfectly phrasing their words which could irritate some uninformed strangers. They shut you down, ban you on forums or make even telephone calls to people you know. I don't think that's a fitting consequence and even then, mistakes would happen. Interacting on the internet would become impossible and already is on some RPG Forums.

 

You would find here some users who experienced online mobbing and RL harassment themselves, and some of them staying completely alone, so you will not find a monolithic hate mob on this forum.

 

take into accout english is not my mother language.

Zitat von zak am 29. Januar 2023, 22:07 Uhr

Zitat von Settembrini am 29. Januar 2023, 21:36 Uhr

I di dnot spread any lie about you. Not a single one.

You are confusing and mixing up people, it seems.

 

So far:

-You said I used sock puppets

-You said I lied

-You said I was being manipulative by asking you a completely straightforward question about a claim that you made repeatedly in a public forum

..which you're still not answering.

I'll repeat the question you are dodging for the benefit of anyone reading along:

"

So here's how that would work:

From 2009-2018 you and other people lie on the internet about a common target, in hundreds of different legal jurisdictions.

In most of these jurisdictions, although it is child's-play to prove they are lying it is impossible to sue because it would cost more money to prove that this cost the target money than the amount of money that it could be undeniably proven this costs and the charge is (in many places) civil rather than criminal.

Then in 2019, you and other people begin lying in a way that undeniably costs your victim money--every penny the victim has, in fact.

This works because even though all the people speaking have been proven to be unreliable sources of information for nine years, everyone kept treating them as reliable sources because no victim should ever take action unless they can take action via the state justice system.

At that point the victim eventually suffers basically every single negative consequence that a smear online could produce for a person. And it takes a minimum of 4 years (we are coming up on the 4 year anniversary now) to undo it during which the victim's survival is in doubt.

---

Unless you are also volunteering to fix the justice system in every country where RPGs are discussed, you're saying "Have no justice at all".

Address that, please.

"

Zitat von zak am 29. Januar 2023, 22:09 Uhr

Zitat von BoyScout am 29. Januar 2023, 22:03 Uhr

@zak: There a some bold statements mentioned in this discussion which make it almost impossible to comment on in more detail.

Archoangel even already fulfilled Godwin's Law in his sledgehammer approach further deconstructing the pathes of choice to 1.

I don't know what's the reason for this thread (even though I read through it now), or if the comments here are of any value to you, but please note that you don't make me want to even interact any further, confirming my perspective from above. And that, I'm not sure if it's on purpose and where the gain is to you.

But you almost make it impossible not to answer even everything in me warns me not to, but you're right, of course the topic is important to you and you should be adressed directly, if necessary.

zak wrote: As soon as you make statements in a public forum, you are part of the life of the person you commented on--especially if that person is currently experiencing the complete destruction of their entire life due to random anonymous people making public statements about them.

"Part of the life of the person" can mean a lot. Or nothing. There is no basis to agree on. But I totally agree on the second part, one should more carefully choose their words. But it's often hard to assess the impact of a statement. You might find it obvious, but mistakes will and have been made.

In which way a single diffuse statement makes someone completely vile and evil to the extreme, I can't understand. It's possible. But also, it's not. So again, there is no ground to settle on.

But there is also a responsibility for the recipient to not believe every crap they read in the media. Often these people twist what they read to fit their perspective and then act on it. But "act on it" is the critical part. These people always come through innocent and that's what's depressing me.

You might think there are no consequences, no one has learned from this. But I don't agree, I think a lot of people took consequences for themselve. I also needed to learn to use the internet properly on many ocassions that don't only revolve about you, and I behave differently now. But that's not possible without making mistakes. Sometimes the price is high, and that's tragic but I don't see a way to avoid mistakes.

One has to differentiate the intentions. Lying is a completely different grade, of course. But there are a lot of discussions in the EU about self-censorship, politically defined "hate speech" and what not. But no one speaks about those who take random words of others as an excuse for their actions. As a consequence, some people think one should be silenced for all eternity on the internet when making such a mistake about not perfectly phrasing their words which could irritate some uninformed strangers. They shut you down, ban you on forums or make even telephone calls to people you know, I don't think that's a fitting consequence. And it already happens. Interacting on the internet would become impossible and already is on some RPG Forums.

 

You would find here some users who experienced online mobbing and RL harassment themselves, and some of them staying completely alone, so you will not find a monolithic hate mob on this forum.

 

take into accout english is not my mother language.

Everyone makes mistakes.

If you apologize and try your best to undo the harm you caused then you are good.

If you don't you are bad.

Zitat von Settembrini am 30. Januar 2023, 8:11 Uhr

Zitat von zak am 29. Januar 2023, 22:07 Uhr

Zitat von Settembrini am 29. Januar 2023, 21:36 Uhr

I di dnot spread any lie about you. Not a single one.

You are confusing and mixing up people, it seems.

 

So far:

-You said I used sock puppets

-You said I lied

-You said I was being manipulative by asking you a completely straightforward question about a claim that you made repeatedly in a public forum

..which you're still not answering.

I'll repeat the question you are dodging for the benefit of anyone reading along:

"

So here's how that would work:

From 2009-2018 you and other people lie on the internet about a common target, in hundreds of different legal jurisdictions.

In most of these jurisdictions, although it is child's-play to prove they are lying it is impossible to sue because it would cost more money to prove that this cost the target money than the amount of money that it could be undeniably proven this costs and the charge is (in many places) civil rather than criminal.

Then in 2019, you and other people begin lying in a way that undeniably costs your victim money--every penny the victim has, in fact.

This works because even though all the people speaking have been proven to be unreliable sources of information for nine years, everyone kept treating them as reliable sources because no victim should ever take action unless they can take action via the state justice system.

At that point the victim eventually suffers basically every single negative consequence that a smear online could produce for a person. And it takes a minimum of 4 years (we are coming up on the 4 year anniversary now) to undo it during which the victim's survival is in doubt.

---

Unless you are also volunteering to fix the justice system in every country where RPGs are discussed, you're saying "Have no justice at all".

Address that, please.

"

I reject all your hypothesis except having complained that you used sockpuppets and false statements in your quest for revenge in 2019+.

If you never used a sockpuppet, then I have been mislead. At the time I found the evidence produced in screenshots to be damning and unassailable, even right up to your own standards.

False statements, at least about me, can be seen just in this thread here, so that stands.

All the rest you are saying, is likewise and moreso willful denial of differentiation.

But I think anybody here can see if I am "dodging your question" or if I actually answered it.

You tried mocking me and my belief system that was part of my answer, because you did not like that answer. But an answer it was, several times.  Mocking & denigrating people and asking the same question again and again until they change their answer to your liking, pretending they did not answer at all (factually untrue) is what I would call manipulative. That was the sense of my critique of your methods at start and it stands.

 

 

 

Zitat von Hergen am 30. Januar 2023, 8:29 Uhr

Well done!

Zitat von zak am 30. Januar 2023, 18:37 Uhr

Zitat von Settembrini am 30. Januar 2023, 8:11 Uhr

Zitat von zak am 29. Januar 2023, 22:07 Uhr

Zitat von Settembrini am 29. Januar 2023, 21:36 Uhr

I di dnot spread any lie about you. Not a single one.

You are confusing and mixing up people, it seems.

 

So far:

-You said I used sock puppets

-You said I lied

-You said I was being manipulative by asking you a completely straightforward question about a claim that you made repeatedly in a public forum

..which you're still not answering.

I'll repeat the question you are dodging for the benefit of anyone reading along:

"

So here's how that would work:

From 2009-2018 you and other people lie on the internet about a common target, in hundreds of different legal jurisdictions.

In most of these jurisdictions, although it is child's-play to prove they are lying it is impossible to sue because it would cost more money to prove that this cost the target money than the amount of money that it could be undeniably proven this costs and the charge is (in many places) civil rather than criminal.

Then in 2019, you and other people begin lying in a way that undeniably costs your victim money--every penny the victim has, in fact.

This works because even though all the people speaking have been proven to be unreliable sources of information for nine years, everyone kept treating them as reliable sources because no victim should ever take action unless they can take action via the state justice system.

At that point the victim eventually suffers basically every single negative consequence that a smear online could produce for a person. And it takes a minimum of 4 years (we are coming up on the 4 year anniversary now) to undo it during which the victim's survival is in doubt.

---

Unless you are also volunteering to fix the justice system in every country where RPGs are discussed, you're saying "Have no justice at all".

Address that, please.

"

I reject all your hypothesis except having complained that you used sockpuppets and false statements in your quest for revenge in 2019+.

If you never used a sockpuppet, then I have been mislead. At the time I found the evidence produced in screenshots to be damning and unassailable, even right up to your own standards.

You didn't ask me about it.

My own standard is:

One produces evidence.

You confront the person you are accusing directly. Not complain behind their back.

If someone contests the evidence or has an explanation, then that contestation or explanation must be examined--starting by talking to them and checking their statements against what's verifiable.

You did not do that.

When I produced evidence: nobody contested it. Mandy didn't go "Oh I didn't write that" or "Oh the doctor didn't claim that".

So, not, you met no reasonable standards.

The thing to do now, for you, is apologize. OR, if you really believe I was dishonest: investigate, starting with asking me questions.

Now you may say "I don't care enough to do that"

Then you had no business making a public statement about it to begin with. You are legally allowed to (in some jurisdictions) and morally wrong.

False statements, at least about me, can be seen just in this thread here, so that stands.

No, you lied (see above)/

And you falsely claimed I was being manipulative.

If you think I made a false statement:

Say what that that  is and engage, without whining, with the other person in a process to assess that.

All the rest you are saying, is likewise and moreso willful denial of differentiation.

But I think anybody here can see if I am "dodging your question" or if I actually answered it.

You tried mocking me and my belief system that was part of my answer, because you did not like that answer. But an answer it was, several times.  Mocking & denigrating people and asking the same question again and again until they change their answer to your liking, pretending they did not answer at all (factually untrue) is what I would call manipulative. That was the sense of my critique of your methods at start and it stands.

I didnt' mock shit.

I asked a simple question:

You have repeatedly stated a simple belief:

You believe it is wrong for a victim to seek justice outside the legal system.

When asked why, you repeat, in different words, that you believe it is wrong to seek justice outside the legal system.

That isn't giving an "answer I don't like"--that is refusing to answer.

You are asked about a specific scenario, how you deal with it.

I shall repeat it, please address how you deal with the following specific scenario. 

Do not simply repeat your belief, explain, how you are ok with the following:

"

So here's how that would work:

From 2009-2018 you and other people lie on the internet about a common target, in hundreds of different legal jurisdictions.

In most of these jurisdictions, although it is child's-play to prove they are lying it is impossible to sue because it would cost more money to prove that this cost the target money than the amount of money that it could be undeniably proven this costs and the charge is (in many places) civil rather than criminal.

Then in 2019, you and other people begin lying in a way that undeniably costs your victim money--every penny the victim has, in fact.

This works because even though all the people speaking have been proven to be unreliable sources of information for nine years, everyone kept treating them as reliable sources because no victim should ever take action unless they can take action via the state justice system.

At that point the victim eventually suffers basically every single negative consequence that a smear online could produce for a person. And it takes a minimum of 4 years (we are coming up on the 4 year anniversary now) to undo it during which the victim's survival is in doubt.

---

Unless you are also volunteering to fix the justice system in every country where RPGs are discussed, you're saying "Have no justice at all".

Address that, please.

"

Whether the answer is

"Because I believe all outcomes are ordained by god"

or

"Because I want to do shitty things and don't want consequences for myself "

or

"Because I haven't thought about it that much because I can't imaging it happening to me"

or

"Because I trust the state more than any process outside it"

or

"Because I believe basically lots of people suffering unjustly because they have suffered an injustice they can't appeal to the state for is not as bad as having to deal with the many justice solutions outside state control."

or

"I read a book about it where the author said that, agreed with them at an impressionable age and am emotionally uncomfortable with re-examining that belief"

or something else.

Give the reason that is in your head for the position that you have taken over and over on this forum.

Don;t repeat that you have the belief, that is not an answer to the question you are being asked, say how you arrived at that conclusion.

Zitat von Settembrini am 30. Januar 2023, 19:09 Uhr

That is  quite a defocus. One that does not add to your previous arguments. It is the Anarchist who needs to explain why current society should be abolished. The onus is on you, not me, to make the case for anarchy.

As to your maximalist-non-denial-is-approval stance:

Accroding to your own standards, you have admitted in using sock puppets. Example: on the website Coins & Scrolls:

https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-zak-sabbath-smith-lawsuits.html

You challenge many, details of what skerples has written and/or claimed. In great detail. You never challenge his repeated mention of sockpuppetting. And the two specific examples he links to are also not challenged.

Under your own peculiar rules, this is admission. So I take back that I might have been mislead, you yourself, in accordance not only with your standards, but also procedure and history of interacting on that site, have admitted of using sock puppets.

Under your own rules you also have lied about that, in this here thread.

As for philosophical reasons for believing in the rule of law, I will not share my philosophy with you, as you yourselves are very, very litigous, it appears. Good for you, in my belief system! But totally at odds with your own anarchist claims here. Any discussion with such an illogical mindset is bound to be pointless.

So, really, while I do not wish you anything bad, I cannot see how we two can meaningfully interact at your current state of mind. So do not expect any further elucidation on my side, because ultimately, my stance is crystal clear, you just do not seem to like it.  Others want to talk to you, so I will make room for that, as long as the law is upheld.

Zitat von zak am 30. Januar 2023, 19:38 Uhr

Zitat von Settembrini am 30. Januar 2023, 19:09 Uhr

That is  quite a defocus. One that does not add to your previous arguments. It is the Anarchist who needs to explain why current society should be abolished.

We're not asking why current society should be abolished.

We asked why people shouldn't suffer consequences outside the law for doing bad things--which happens all the time in current society.

 

Accroding to your own standards, you have admitted in using sock puppets. Example: on the website Coins & Scrolls:

https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-zak-sabbath-smith-lawsuits.html

I didn't use sock puppets and I don't claim to there. There is no statement there, from me saying "I used sock puppets".

I am challenging it now, right here, and I would have challenged it there if Skerples had allowed it.

And, no under my (non-peculiar and totally standard) rules, this is not an admission. Burden of proof is on the accuser -- that's you.

You are saying I did a bad thing (use sock puppets)--its up to you to prove it.

Skerples erases a lot of my comments. Also: that site is full of misinformation. If you were relying on it: you should not have. It's not rational to rely, for information, on someone who will not answer questions about where their conclusions come from.

If you believed Skerples (an anonymous person who does not answer questions) against me (a non-anonymous person who does answer questions and will and has said all that I'm saying under oath and can provide documentary evidence of anything that would have been documented) then you are not rational.

I will not share my philosophy with you,

Thank you for finally admitting that rather than continuing to dodge and lie.

If you will not share your philosophy, you should never be taken seriously on any subject by anyone.

You are an adult who can't defend your beliefs therefore you should never be listened to.

Zitat von Archoangel am 30. Januar 2023, 23:35 Uhr

Zak - you won`t acomplish anything from Settembrini; that´s what I already wrote. For he is a selfish person who does not think he can do anything wrong. He will never apologize. And he will never answer to you in any means satisfying to you - cause it would demolish his view of himself. He is a selfish man, not able to see it. He is selfopinionated, vain, bossy and not able to take criticism. And he thinks of himself as wise and holy.
And it can take years to notice this. Or moments - like now.

As for mine I truly belive he will rot in hell some day for beeing so complacent.

We have lots of this people nowadays here in germany.