Smith was never charged with any crime but responded to the resulting online harassment by successfully suing those who made and repeated Nagy and company’s allegations five times in five countries. As of a decision in October 2025, Smith has successfully prevailed in these defamation suits in the US, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Switzerland (“while having a pentagram tattooed on my jaw,” Smith adds mordantly) including a verdict in August against Morbid herself. [emphasis mine]
-and-
[Dr. Clio] Weisman likewise found that none of the harassers could provide any links or screenshots to the incriminating or harmful things they claimed Smith posted online.Although Weisman attempted to de-circulate her article and the attached interview clips soon after publishing (once the gamers she interviewed began to focus their attention on her), Artillery’s reporting (including access to the full sixty-hours of audio interviews) confirms all of her factual claims about Smith and his accusers. Despite this, attacks against Smith continue, especially on sites dedicated to gaming.
Sixty hours of audio! Dang! That's a lot of material.
.jpg)
.JPG)
.png)
.gif)
Posts
That's what I thought, too. And also about people who claimed that the interviews "were not real" (people named in the article had confirmed the interviews were real).
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for me to contemplate that halcyon time of now six years ago. I can hardly imagine what Zak has gone through. Even when you win at court that moment of relief follows months or even years of stress. All because some folks would rather burn the place down than see other folks have nice things.
ReplyDelete"Despite this, attacks against Smith continue, especially on sites dedicated to gaming." Unfortunately for the human race, I suspect if he were more charismatic he'd have escaped relatively unscathed. It's hard not to notice that when a charming smoothie suffers any public accusation, everyone is insistent on waiting until the facts come out before drawing any conclusions, but when an egocentric pill like Zak gets the same, everyone will dogpile him. Yet in both cases they'll think they're taking the morally superior position.
ReplyDelete@john
DeleteClaiming I'm an "egocentric pill" is exactly how this starts.
You make a personal attack.
I (or someone) says literally the only responsible thing a person can say "What actual thing made you decide that?"
Then you dodge the responsibility to answer by escalating, or run away and complain on another forum where someone else escalates.
There's a way to avoid this, but the only way to avoid that is to let shitty behavior like what you did go--which creates a problem for everyone, long term.
Shitty people will never find pointing out that they are shitty charming.
It's quite the opposite. Charming people are attacked non-stop, and disgusting idiots are openly supported by idiots. Take a look at the current president, for example.
DeleteAhh Zak. I do actually like you, or your online persona at least, and you've had hard times, and these are just blog comments, so I shall be as gentle as I know how.
DeleteThe claim that you're an "egocentric pill" is just a personal observation, one I made way before your current woes. I'm not going to armchair psychoanalyse you as to why. Perhaps I'm misusing the word pill - I think of it as something hard to swallow. I did, long ago - you don't bother me, don't worry.
There is no particular relationship between having a personal opinion about your personal (online) behaviour, and the shit you've had to deal with. Expressing an opinion about you based on observation and interaction is not "shitty behavior". I shan't escalate or run away and complain on another forum and never have, but I'm - respectfully - not susceptible to what you're laying down there. I'd like to say it's understandable you want to run down any criticism to its root given what you've been through, but again - you've always been like this.
I will continue to buy your stuff! I'm reluctant to continue to jam up Jeff's comments, even if that means I'm dodging responsibility and running away.
@john
DeleteI don't care if you "like" me or not.
Multiple times you've started conversations, then fled or escalated to personal attacks when challenged.
The "charming" way to deal with this is ignore it (thus creating no negative reinforcement for the bad actor and making the community worse).
The rude but responsible way to deal with that is to point out its shitty.
I would rather do the right thing than make a bunch of dickheads like me.
@zak "Multiple times you've started conversations, then fled or escalated to personal attacks when challenged." This is a lie. I don't, generally, engage with liars. I won't engage with you in future, which I guess is fortunate for us both.
Delete@john
DeleteNope it's all recorded, John.
You did it here: https://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2024/06/good-deed-goes-punished.html
And here:
https://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2025/11/are-conservative-gamers-just-stupid.html
And you did it above with the multiple first-strike personal attacks.
I didn't comb the entire archive, but that's enough to prove it.
The former speaks for itself. The latter, Zak, you have deleted. I'm not any more happy about this than you are.
Delete@john
DeleteI don't have strong feelings about it
Your behavior is the same as most of the RPG community or, for example, any Holocaust denier.
You make a claim, get asked a question and dodge answering.
As Sartre said:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
Substitute out the specific claim and that's exactly you, complete with "loftily indicating" you're too good to substantiate what you say like any rational person.
You do it repeatedly and it is important to point out that it is evil.
@john
DeleteIf you wish to cease being evil:
-Apologize for all of this behavior
-Go back and address all the shit you dodged.
-Track down anyone who might've been influenced by your bullshit claims and supply them with the information you refused to.
-If they lost any time reading your half-assed and not-backed-up claims, do whatever they require to feel compensated for the time that you wasted.
OK, Zak.
DeleteA cautionary tale concerning the perils of art degrees and stimulant abuse, if nothing else.
Delete@anonymous
DeleteI know telling an anonymous troll that argument-via-stereotype is stupid but nobody (even people who hate me and testified to my supposed faults many times) has ever even suggested I use any stimulant stronger then Dr Pepper.
But, the important part here for any lurkers is:
Neither John or Anon here are delivering any proof I did anything bad.
"Unfortunately for the human race, I suspect if he were more charismatic he'd have escaped relatively unscathed." On reviewing this little tiff, I recognise my grammatical fault there: I meant that it was unfortunate we behave that way as a species, not that Zak is any wart on the human race. I apologise, Zak.
ReplyDelete@john
Delete"If you wish to cease being evil:
-Apologize for all* of this behavior
-Go back and address all the shit you dodged.
-Track down anyone who might've been influenced by your bullshit claims and supply them with the information you refused to.
-If they lost any time reading your half-assed and not-backed-up claims, do whatever they require to feel compensated for the time that you wasted.
"
*That is, to clarify: all of it.
No, Zak.
Delete