# We're All Gamers Together: Why Harassment Has To Stop



## MadAxe

Glad to see this on ENWorld. I hope more in the community can listen and help make the necessary changes.


----------



## jamesjhaeck

Glad to see that this idea is gaining traction and visibility in the gaming community. One big thing that everyone should remember is that discrimination isn't always as blatant and capital-E Evil as the actions described in the Latining article. 

One subtle thing I've noticed is that, using the Fake Geek Girl example, most people don't think women are inferior gamers, but there are a lot of "true gamer" types who infer that she's just gaming because she wants attention. Well... yeah, that's probably true. _Everyone_ games because they want attention, just a little bit. Winning a game, making a great play in a game... all of that gets you attention. Attention feels good! 

It's not easy to call out big abuses, solely because of social pressure, but it's even harder to call out small things like this. Small abuses don't even require malicious intent, just a lack of critical thought. And when someone who makes little abuses like this (like I have!) gets called out for it, it feels like they're being accused of intentional sexism. Which isn't easy to deal with. It makes people mad and puts them on the defensive. "Why are the feminists saying I'm a bad guy? I'm just a moderate!" This was my defense for a long time. But it's not a defense; it's just a way to deflect criticism and avoid introspection. 

Positive change is hard and painful. It requires reevaluation of a lot of "common sense" assumptions that society has taught us, and being able to deal with a bruised ego.


----------



## Dragonbait

I shouldn't be shocked by this news, really, but I am. I really thought that table top gamers were fringe enough when compared to video game players and sports fans that there was some sort of social awareness going on. but then I think back to some of the people I gamed with and those that I had to boot from the group and then I realize how naive I was for thinking this.


----------



## EthanSental

I'm not surprised. Most gamers are a socially awkward bunch with the social skills of a fruit punch bowl. Doesn't make it right to graphically talk about the stuff in this article to female gamers in the guise of it being roleplaying but I can see it happening and happening more often than we think.


----------



## Xeviat

Dragonbait said:


> I shouldn't be shocked by this news, really, but I am. I really thought that table top gamers were fringe enough when compared to video game players and sports fans that there was some sort of social awareness going on. but then I think back to some of the people I gamed with and those that I had to boot from the group and then I realize how naive I was for thinking this.




Gamers are fringe, but unfortunately some within our community are pushed here because they aren't accepted in other circles. Our fringeness, our having dealt with social rejection in the past, can make us not want to do the same to others. So people with bad behavior are kept around in our circles. Them chasing off newcomers gets overlooked, because we don't want to chase them away.

Bad behavior needs to be stopped whenever it occurs. As a transwoman, I am not comfortable playing at my local store just because I'm afraid of putting myself out there.


----------



## Alphastream

For D&D Organized Play, Baldman Games (they run organized play at major conventions) has created a Code of Conduct that was inspired, in part, by what 13th Age had created. This is part of the Herald's Guild, created to help train DMs and improve the convention experience. DMs can find training courses there on a variety of topics.


----------



## Dragonbait

Xeviat said:


> Bad behavior needs to be stopped whenever it occurs. As a transwoman, I am not comfortable playing at my local store just because I'm afraid of putting myself out there.




It's a shame because the groups that game in the store would be the first group that people often see and set the bar for all other groups. 
Well.. There IS YouTube now. Perhaps there needs to be more gaming groups willing to record and show themselves on the internet? There probably are a myriad of them and I am just unaware of it.


----------



## Uder

I never have understood the ill will towards women in this hobby. I also don't understand the need to label people "white terrorists." Blech. Guess I'll just go hide my head in the sand some more and be glad I run a home game. People suck.


----------



## Obryn

Well said.


----------



## Jester David

+1.


----------



## gweinel

Ι couldn't agree more!


----------



## Jester David

Uder said:


> I never have understood the ill will towards women in this hobby. I also don't understand the need to label people "white terrorists." Blech. Guess I'll just go hide my head in the sand some more and be glad I run a home game. People suck.



The "white terrorist" label is pretty much hyperbole, associating harassment with such an emotionally loaded term as "terrorist". 
Which is likely the point: by applying the definition of the term terrorist to abusers it's meant to get us to really _think_ about the behaviour and the people who do it. It's not an inaccurate usage of the term and makes us wonder how it can be ignored, let alone condoned.


----------



## EvilPheemy

I have known too many gamers who don't attend conventions, play in public spaces, and go through an extensive vetting process for groups they wish to join for *precisely* this reason.  This state of affairs is no longer acceptable.  So many of us who came into gaming in the 1980s were bullied, harassed, belittled, sometimes to the point of physical abuse, all because of the games we played and the stories we told.  It was not right for us to be bullied then, and it's sure as Hell not right for any of us to be bullies, (or stay quiet when we witness it) now.  (Gods help me, I'm preaching again.. forgive me.. but passions run high).  Our community, the gaming community, has so much promise to be a force for change.  In our shared imaginations we can be whoever we see our ideal selves being.  Stores, Conventions and Game tables can be a place of refuge for ALL of us, regardless of our circumstances, from the struggles we all face in our regular, day-to-day lives.  I'm begging all of you.. please.. be a Hero, Stand Up, Support one another, Love one another.  We. Can. Be. Better.


----------



## hardvice

Honestly?  Some of this behavior is expressly intended to scare women out of participating. I have zero problem with calling someone using fear to modify somebody else's behavior "terrorism", because that's what it is.

If the use of that term errs, it's in that it also includes conduct that's merely disgusting and sexually entitled along with conduct that's intentionally threatening and exclusionary.


----------



## werecorpse

I am glad you wrote this article. I am also glad the White male terrorist article was written and have no issue with the title. I am shocked this stuff happens, it's appalling. Bringing it out so its more widely known is a good thing. I will try and be more alert to it. I have generally been unable to get to conventions and almost always game with people I know so this is unknown to me. It makes me concerned about letting my daughter cosplay.
Btw IMO from what I read, the finding by the tribunal isn't the same as the harassment being "substantiated as being true" - unless there was a witness, an admission or some other evidence. (Not doubting it happened - just not 'substantiated')


----------



## Christopher Helton

Dragonbait said:


> It's a shame because the groups that game in the store would be the first group that people often see and set the bar for all other groups.
> Well.. There IS YouTube now. Perhaps there needs to be more gaming groups willing to record and show themselves on the internet? There probably are a myriad of them and I am just unaware of it.




Our group uses YouTube off and on, and has for years. Here's my channel.

Here are some of the videos for the online parts of Contessa.


----------



## RotGrub

The unspoken truth is that D&D is a game that can, like poker night,  be played by a rabble of men,  for which the only membership requirement is the freedom of vulgarity.      
A safe space like a men's only pub might be a better venue for such games


----------



## Wolvercote

Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.


----------



## Xeviat

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




Please don't dismiss other people's experiences because you haven't seen or experienced them.


----------



## MechaPilot

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




I asked two male coworkers about sexual harassment and assault of women at cons they've attended.  One said that it happens, but no more so than at concerts and other such venues.  However, the other, who is more of a people watcher than the first, said that it goes on a lot, especially at gaming cons and anime cons.  That's coming from male gamers who attend conventions.  The author may have phrased her point poorly for the audience she was trying to reach, but she's talking about a problem that really does exist.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




I spent three days read the emails and IMs of women. This isn't being made up.

Not seeing something isn't the same as it not happening. I've been gaming since 1979, my first DM was a woman, and just because I haven't seen these things directly doesn't mean that it isn't happening. And frankly, it is comments like this that allow these things to continue.


----------



## MadAxe

Nonsense, Wolvercote. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and it happens A LOT. 

I say enough is enough with people in the community dismissing this as made up hate speech. Recognizing a real problem isn't pandering.


----------



## Obryn

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.



So she's lying and making it all up? 

That's a pretty hot take right there!


----------



## Curmudjinn

Clearly, all of the beheadings, murders and genocide around the world are fabrications, because I've never witnessed them. I've also never seen women treated badly in tabletop games, but I know enough females who have. Especially in other gaming environments, and as they say, in groups "boys will be boys".
Transgressors change their tune pretty quickly when that female is someone they care about.

Bottom line, humanity needs to be better.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




In addition to all the excellent replies so far, I'd like to point out that reactions like this are a BIG part of the reason you DON'T hear more about stuff like this happening. 

It can be hard to come forward in the first place when you're the victim of something as awful and private and isolating as sexual abuse. When someone sees that evidence and just dismisses you as a liar (who is "selling hatespeech") or insists that you're making it up (and that anyone who takes you seriously is "pandering" to you), it makes it all the harder not just for you, but also for everyone around you who sees you treated like that. This kneejerk reaction of "I'VE never heard of it so she MUST be lying!" is part of what keeps this stuff hidden and whispered about rather than discussed openly - if you have reason to suspect that no one will believe you when you point out the atrocity, you quickly learn that speaking out is a painful, personal process that changes nothing. 

I mean, look, ENWorld is hearing about this _*secondhand*_, even. That's how quiet this is. I dunno the gender or personal experiences of every poster here, but I'm willing to bet we're at least mostly dudes talking about something that we've been told about, not something we've directly experienced. 

So, I humbly submit that while you have never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on, you've heard of it *now*, and if it doesn't sound like something that's acceptable to you, you should probably take the small first step toward improving the situation by at least *accepting the new information*, no matter how unexpected or shocking that information might be. 

And maybe rather than shout them down, you can take the time it took to write the next post like that to educate yourself on how sexual assaults are (under)reported, and maybe see if you can do something to help counter that.


----------



## chibi graz'zt

Im a proud, out gaymer. I appreciate this article immensely. Ive personally experienced subtle harassment and while its only happen a couple of times, its enough to know that it happens. 

This must stop. 

If I experience this I will make it a point to inform con reps, particularly at GenCon, or any con I attend.


----------



## Dire Bare

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




Wolvercote, if you're not seeing it, you're either not looking, blind, lying, or incredibly, incredibly (unrealistically) lucky. It's endemic in the hobby.

I've heard similar stories from female geeky friends all my life to what I've read in the "Latining" blog post linked in the OP. I've witnessed this crap myself. It's disgusting. It's one of the reasons, as a hetero male who respects women, minorities, and the gay/trans community, I avoid spending time in gaming rooms at my local "FLGS" stores. I avoid joining gaming groups of folks I don't already know, because I've too often walked into a den of troglodytes spouting racist, sexist, and homophobic "humor". I too have watched the sophomoric behavior of white male gamers ignored by store staff and other white male patrons. I refuse to participate. I refuse to spend money where this behavior is accepted. I refuse to respect men who claim it's just "humor" or that these types of stories are overblown and exaggerated.

Consequently, I don't game as much as some of my friends who are more tolerant of this type of misbehavior. Oh well. I refuse to be quiet while others are uncivil, and this costs me leisure opportunity, and I'm good with that.

Men who are crass and behave stupidly around women, minorities, and gay/trans are not necessarily "terrorists" in my view, although they are a cancer upon our hobby. But men who take their cues from Gamergate and the Sad Puppies and go out of their way to harass and threaten women and others who speak up on this blight ARE MOST DEFINITELY TERRORISTS. They are actively working to induce terror in others to silence them and drive them away from their precious "man-space". And they deserve whatever ill comes their way from their truly evil, vile actions.


----------



## Hussar

Heh.  I remember a recent comment from one of our sessions that went something along the lines of "What is it about D&D that brings out the 13 year old boy in us?"     Now, to be fair, my group is all male and while lots of the jokes around the table might be puerile and immature, AFAIK, no one has been harassed or made to feel unwelcome.  Now, when the group did have a woman in it, the humour was toned down quite a bit, and there were a lot less dick jokes.  

But, I hope that at any table I've played at or run, I've never harassed anyone.


----------



## Nellisir

Good article, and an important one.


----------



## Taneras

Honestly this sounds just like another progressive hit piece against white men, equipped with trigger warnings and demands that the only acceptable reaction is to "listen and believe" and be an ally.   Is there any horrible societal ill white males aren't responsible for?  It's also puzzling to me the few people here who've commented how rampant this sort of thing is.  I can only imagine two possibilities, either most of this community is perfectly ok with women being harassed or most of this community isn't ok with it but sat back and did nothing.  I don't think either option speaks well of our community.  Is it really this bad?  Don't get me wrong, one incident is too many.  But one expects when a hobby is this wide spread that you're going to run into this sort of thing almost by default.  Pick any hobby, sports group, heck even religious organization and you'll see stuff like this.  I don't think its as much of a "gamer issue" as it is just a "human issue".

No doubt that people, including women, get harassed at table top events, hobby shops, etc.  I don't find it odd that women, obviously being women, experience a different sort of harassment because the harassers have a different selection of threats/insults/etc to use in order to intimidate or insult their victims.  I'm sure you'll see the same pattern with race, age, sexual orientation, religion, etc. - with each specific group receiving specific types of harassment relating to the group they're in.  I don't mean to belittle the harassment that women receive by also pointing out that men also receive harassment, but I do point out the harassment men receive as evidence this isn't a gendered issue.  You're going to have bitter and disgusting people in a group this large and those people are going to ruin other people's experiences.  On the flip side, there are very likely harmless incidents where the person claiming to be the victim are merely over reacting (this is why the "listen and believe" with regards to what you perceive to be true is problematic).  Some of the stuff I've seen in the news lately makes me wonder whether people are capable enough of identifying what is and what isn't harassment - a story of some college kids needing therapy after seeing "Trump 2016" written in chalk on the sidewalks lining their university come to mind.  I don't mention that to bring up politics, I don't care who you're voting for, but I hope you can see that that's just outlandish.

So, I'm sorry.  I'm not just going to listen and believe.  I've seen this same sort of ideology pushed in almost every other hobby I currently enjoy.  Hell, even in non-hobbies (like atheism) its an "issue".  I'm not going to dismiss it outright, but I'm going to need more than a blog about white male gamer terrorists to convince me that this problem is any worse than what the average person experiences in your average Western society.  If I listened and believed just about every label I apply to myself has a huge issue with sexism, racism, etc.  And I'm not the only person who's said that.  It would seem that just about every group is experiencing these rampant problems and I just find it hard to believe.  So, again, I won't listen and believe.  But I will call out any harassment I see, regardless of who the bully/victim are.  And to those who say that it is rampant I urge you to step in as well.  It hurts to see this sort of conversation taking place at one of the hobbies I hold most dear.  I'd hate to think that most of the people who share my love for this activity either participates in this sort of bullying or looks the other way when it does happen.


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> So, I'm sorry.  I'm not just going to listen and believe.




What is the middle ground between "listen and believe" and "dismiss out of hand?"

As a woman, I know that I don't wear body cameras and a wire wherever I go.  If someone sexually assaulted me by groping me in a crowded room full of people paying attention to other things (like games they are actively engaged in playing, games they are actively watching, merchandise they're looking over to see if they want to buy, scantily-clad cosplayers who are generally going to be more attractive than I am, etc), there could very easily be no evidence for me to share beyond my word that it happened.

I've shared my story of essentially being raped by proxy when a DM tried to push me to roleplay the graphic rape of my character in front of other players who just sat and watched with far too much interest and no glimmer of support for the position that I was in within sight.  All I have is my word that this experience happened.  If it's not believed because I don't wear a camera and a wire 24/7, then my harassment experience is being dismissed.

Please, in my case tell me what the middle ground is between you listening to my experience and taking me at my word, and my experience being dismissed because I can't prove it to you.


----------



## ccs

Hussar said:


> Heh.  I remember a recent comment from one of our sessions that went something along the lines of "What is it about D&D that brings out the 13 year old boy in us?"     Now, to be fair, my group is all male and while lots of the jokes around the table might be puerile and immature,




I'll bet the reason is that that's about the age alot of us started playing and that's the stage of development our humor was in at the time.
Now we find this awesome game & spend who knows how much time having a blast with our buddies.  Who also share this degree of humor....
This leaves quite an impression.

Then, as the years & decades pass, everytime we play the game we subconsciously reference back to those early times.  When we were having the most fun.
And we subconsciously try & recreate it.
Wich doesn't work.


----------



## Taneras

MechaPilot said:


> What is the middle ground between "listen and believe" and "dismiss out of hand?"




For me it would be question, do your best to remove any biases you have, and try and reach a reasonable conclusion.  Sorry that's pretty vague, I'm sure the more detailed response would depend on the specific sort of situation that's being discussed.



MechaPilot said:


> As a woman, I know that I don't wear body cameras and a wire wherever I go.  If someone sexually assaulted me by groping me in a crowded room full of people paying attention to other things (like games they are actively engaged in playing, games they are actively watching, merchandise they're looking over to see if they want to buy, scantily-clad cosplayers who are generally going to be more attractive than I am, etc), there could very easily be no evidence for me to share beyond my word that it happened.
> 
> I've shared my story of essentially being raped by proxy when a DM tried to push me to roleplay the graphic rape of my character in front of other players who just sat and watched with far too much interest and no glimmer of support for the position that I was in within sight.  All I have is my word that this experience happened.  If it's not believed because I don't wear a camera and a wire 24/7, then my harassment experience is being dismissed.




I can't speak for everyone, but from what I've seen the biggest complaint isn't that this never happens.  It's that it doesn't happen anymore than it would at other venues for different hobbies or events.  Obviously this isn't backed up by statistics, but neither is the claim that its an epidemic in our community.  Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I'm trying to downplay individual experiences.  One incident is one too many, and I think its important for victims to speak out when things occur and, possibly more importantly, people who witness it actually speak up/prevent it rather than ignoring it or being silent about it.



MechaPilot said:


> Please, in my case tell me what the middle ground is between you listening to my experience and taking me at my word, and my experience being dismissed because I can't prove it to you.




I'd believe you, and I'd ask who the DM and other players were.  If I knew them I'd talk to them.  If not, I'd still believe you.  Perhaps I came across the wrong way with my previous posts, but my default position isn't to not believe automatically, its more skepticism at how big of a problem this is within our community.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I wonder if women would be willing to wear body cameras when they go to Cons/FLGS?  Some video evidence could go a long way.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> Honestly this sounds just like another progressive hit piece against white men, equipped with trigger warnings and demands that the only acceptable reaction is to "listen and believe" and be an ally.




I'm sorry, I can no longer take you seriously.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




Agreed. The vast majority of the article is completely unsubstantiated. I've had women at my table many times over the years without issue, including wives and girlfriends.  As a matter of fact, I ran a campaign for two years that was entirely collage-aged women with males bouncing in and out of the campaign.  Never a single issue.  Not one; everyone was utterly polite, not even a rules dispute the entire time.  No, this article is an extension of the social justice warrior syndrome and feminism sweeping the internet. It's unsubstantiated crap.


----------



## AngryTiger

If you are harassed at any event you should always report it to the event organizers and the police. It's they'r job to take it seriously and investigate it. If harassment is happening and there is proof of it, the police would do something about it, assuming people would actually report it.

Anyone can make up any stories on the internet, and if you aren't confident enough that you were actually harassed to report it to the police, why should anyone else believe you? Anonymous crying online doesn't help anyone, report the harassment to authorities.


----------



## MechaPilot

AngryTiger said:


> If you are harassed at any event you should always report it to the event organizers and the police. It's they'r job to take it seriously and investigate it. If harassment is happening and there is proof of it, the police would do something about it, assuming people would actually report it.
> 
> Anyone can make up any stories on the internet, and if you aren't confident enough that you were actually harassed to report it to the police, why should anyone else believe you? Anonymous crying online doesn't help anyone, report the harassment to authorities.




Not reporting is not as you describe it to be.  A lot of people don't report because 1) they have no physical evidence to prove what happened, or 2) because they are embarrassed by or ashamed of what happened and just want to forget it ever happened.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> I'm sorry, I can no longer take you seriously.




You're right, your first, and honestly only, mentioned piece of evidence was a blog post about white male terrorism in table top gaming.  I'm not sure how I came to my original conclusion.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Honestly this sounds just like another progressive hit piece against white men, equipped with trigger warnings and demands that the only acceptable reaction is to "listen and believe" and be an ally.






> No, this article is an extension of the social justice warrior syndrome and feminism sweeping the internet.




People being harassed has nothing to do with a political agenda. People being harassed is *bad*. I imagine we're all agreed on that point regardless of political affiliation? Okay then.



> I can only imagine two possibilities, either most of this community is perfectly ok with women being harassed or most of this community isn't ok with it but sat back and did nothing. I don't think either option speaks well of our community. Is it really this bad?



Evidence would suggest that this happens regularly with people sitting back and doing nothing in most of the world most of the time. Our hobby just isn't any different. Of course, it _could_ be! But the first step to fixing any problem is to acknowledge that it exists, and lines like this...



> I've had women at my table many times over the years without issue, including wives and girlfriends. As a matter of fact, I ran a campaign for two years that was entirely collage-aged women with males bouncing in and out of the campaign. Never a single issue. Not one; everyone was utterly polite, not even a rules dispute the entire time.... It's unsubstantiated crap.




...suggest that articles like this are clearly necessary, since people are absolutely incredulous  to the simple _existence of accounts of harassment and sexual assault happening_, if not showing outright hostility to the idea.


----------



## Fergurg

double post, please delete


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> You're right, your first, and honestly only, mentioned piece of evidence was a blog post about white male terrorism in table top gaming.  I'm not sure how I came to my original conclusion.




LOL no. But, hey thank you for playing.


----------



## MechaPilot

[MENTION=6842952]Taneras[/MENTION]

You joined Apr 2016.  You have six posts and all of them are confined to the two harassment threads.  Did you join here just to obstruct discussion of harassment in gaming?


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> Nonsense, Wolvercote. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and it happens A LOT.
> 
> I say enough is enough with people in the community dismissing this as made up hate speech. Recognizing a real problem isn't pandering.




Here's food for thought: forget about the fact that many of these sound like Lifetime movies (seriously, an ENTIRE STORE chanting "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"?) Here is a response from the company she singled out: http://imgur.com/X1amFDz


----------



## AngryTiger

MechaPilot said:


> Not reporting is not as you describe it to be.  A lot of people don't report because 1) they have no physical evidence to prove what happened, or 2) because they are embarrassed by or ashamed of what happened and just want to forget it ever happened.




Even if you have no evidence you should report it anyway and demand they investigate it. Enough police reports and authorities will spend more resources finding actual evidence. I can understand people wanting to forget about it even happening but it will keep happening if you don't do anything about it. The way i see it people have the responsibility to file a polcie report of any actual harassment, so people take the claims more seriously. If all people do is cry about it online anonymously, people suspect they are lying and for a good reason, lying online is easy, but false police report is a crime.

When my wife was sexually harassed at a gym, she wasn't going to do anything about it until i told her to report it, and demand they investigate the security camera footage. At the very least it will be investigated if you file a police report, since that's they'r job. Many people might not even understand what they are doing is wrong until they get questioned by the police, might scare them and make them act better in the future. In this case there wasn't enough evidence, but if it keeps happening, they should investigate it more thorough, or improve surveillance etc.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> There is another side to this story, and here it is. It puts a whole new light on these claims that are made.
> http://imgur.com/X1amFDz




It's good to get another side, but this isn't about just one issue (read the OP), so regardless of What Actually Happened This One Time, the overall point of _Harassment is Happening and it is Bad and More Can Be Done to Stop It_ should remain uncontroversial, no?


----------



## Fergurg

I'm A Banana said:


> It's good to get another side, but this isn't about just one issue (read the OP), so regardless of What Actually Happened This One Time, the overall point of Harassmen




But the demand is being made to automatically believe the claims that are made; "The accusation is the evidence" is literally the battle cry here. The idea being pushed is that even questioning claims of harassment, no matter how outrageous, is proof of sexism. One of the bigger rpg boards explicitly stated that and has been banning people for questioning the claims in this story.

So while this is not about just one issue, it IS about demands that accusation be treated as absolute proof.

Added: I am sensitive about this, as I was once falsely accused of domestic violence. I proved that the person was lying, but discovered that - and I swear I'm not making this up - laws against filing a false police report explicitly exempts domestic violence claims. So yes, I question the unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

...suggest that articles like this are clearly necessary said:
			
		

> existence of accounts of harassment and sexual assault happening[/I], if not showing outright hostility to the idea.




Unsubstantiated accusation directed at an entire community to illicit sympathy offers nothing of real value.  It's fiction without documentation.


----------



## cmad1977

AWizardInDallas said:


> Unsubstantiated accusation directed at an entire community to illicit sympathy offers nothing of real value.  It's fiction without documentation.



The article is very clearly not targeting an entire community. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> But the demand is being made to automatically believe the claims that are made; "The accusation is the evidence" is literally the battle cry here.






			
				AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> Unsubstantiated accusation directed at an entire community to illicit sympathy offers nothing of real value. It's fiction without documentation.




Not really. Lets start with the most fundamental premise: _Harassment happens at cons._

Even if you dispute this particular example of it, do you dispute that premise overall?

If you agree there, it's kind of a waste of time to get lost in the details of this one particular example. It doesn't matter - we agree that harassment happens at cons and we can move onto the question of _what do we do about it_?

If you think that harassment is not happening at cons, we'll have to have a different conversation first.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

cmad1977 said:


> The article is very clearly not targeting an entire community.




I stand corrected. Just the alleged "white male terrorist" ones.


----------



## Fergurg

I dispute the premise that it is as widespread as claimed. I dispute that drastic action needs to be taken. I reject the assertion that we should take the view of "The accusation is the evidence."

And further, if you feel it's a waste of time to get lost in the details, then it shouldn't be held up as an example or a rallying point. Why wouldn't the fact that one of the loudest accusers has been caught lying about this be important to the discussion?


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> I stand corrected. Just the alleged "white male terrorist" ones.




Well, some gamers (regardless of what their actual race or gender was) clearly were acting as terrorists.  Sending death and rape threats, and generally using fear to try to silence someone is terrorism, and it really should not be tolerated by anyone interested in a free exchange of thoughts and ideas.


----------



## Alphastream

(warning: trigger)

You are kidding yourself if you think the acts the article describes don't happen. They happen in all sorts of areas - not just gaming. In college one of our programs went to a championship and the campus went wild. I asked a campus cop I knew if they were super-excited, and they told me they never got excited about big events like that because it always meant rapes. Every time and many of them, and often by people the victims had considered friends. He dreaded every major celebratory event because of that.

Gaming is no different - it can seem so safe and so great until you realize what takes place. Even if just one of the article's descriptions were true, we should want to take action. It is long overdue in this industry. The more inclusive we are, the more aware we are, the stronger our industry will be.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> Well, some gamers (regardless of what their actual race or gender was) clearly were acting as terrorists.  Sending death and rape threats, and generally using fear to try to silence someone is terrorism, and it really should not be tolerated by anyone interested in a free exchange of thoughts and ideas.




Only if you accept accusation as evidence.  Blind faith in a fiction doesn't make it so.  Also, the odds of ALL the alleged occurrences happening to a single person makes the account even less believable.


----------



## Obryn

Fergurg said:


> I dispute the premise that it is as widespread as claimed. I dispute that drastic action needs to be taken.



What drastic action do you fear will be taken?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Obryn said:


> What drastic action do you fear will be taken?




Fear of unwarranted accusation by people with a social justice warrior bent, a feminist agenda, or Munchhausen syndrome. We all stay home in our little "safe spaces," never meet, never socialize, never game because accusation is accepted as fact and it's too big a risk.  The accuser becomes the terrorist.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Only if you accept accusation as evidence.




Not really.  According to the linked to free press article, she factually did receive threatening emails while her case was before the commission.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> Not really.  According to the linked to free press article, she factually did receive threatening emails while her case was before the commission.




Nothing to substantiate the claims after an entire year has gone by. Weak sauce.


----------



## Obryn

AWizardInDallas said:


> Fear of unwarranted accusation by people with a social justice warrior bent, a feminist agenda, or Munchhausen syndrome. We all stay home in our little "safe spaces," never meet, never socialize, never game because accusation is accepted as fact and it's too big a risk.  The accuser becomes the terrorist.



So the secret plan is the total dissolution of society then. You figured me out.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Obryn said:


> So the secret plan is the total dissolution of society then. You figured me out.




You asked.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Fear of unwarranted accusation by people with a social justice warrior bent, a feminist agenda, or Munchhausen syndrome. We all stay home in our little "safe spaces," never meet, never socialize, never game because accusation is accepted as fact and it's too big a risk.  The accuser becomes the terrorist.




I see literally no one advocating for that.

Look at what has been suggested: the overall consensus is that the community being aware of and not tolerating harassment and assault is a significant step in the right direction.

Also, and somewhat tangentially. . .

1) the "feminist agenda" is gender equality under the law and that is it.  Anyone advocating for special treatment for one gender over another or using claims of sexism to overreact to things like the Joker-Harley slap leaked from the set of Suicide Squad is simply calling him/herself a feminist.

2) SJW is a horribly misnamed term.  A just society is one in which everyone has equal rights under the law.  Fighting for that ideal is, the last I knew, a good thing.  I mean, who wants the law to be bent so that others have more or superior rights than they do?  I could easily imagine people trying to dismiss Ghandi and King, if they were alive and active in today's climate, with the SJW term.


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> Here's food for thought: forget about the fact that many of these sound like Lifetime movies (seriously, an ENTIRE STORE chanting "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"?) Here is a response from the company she singled out: http://imgur.com/X1amFDz




Really? A Lifetime movie? I wonder what prompted you to use Lifetime as an example. I don't think I could possibly read anything into that. 

Ive see the response from the company she has singled out. Nevermind that it's still within reason she isn't lying and he is. Nevermind that any of the multitude of reasons someone could experience what she experience and maybe not want to give or even have the kind of evidence demanded of her.

Never mind that because her story is not unique. It's being told all the time by other people every day, people being harassed out of stores and conventions. The time for skepticism is over, it's long over. What she describes is happening.

I have worked in game stores and I've seen first hand some of what she described. We didn't put up with that nonsense, but it exists. It will keep existing as long as you have folks denying it exists, claiming there is no problem. Some of the professional women in the industry have reported this exact type of behavior.

I would ask what it would take for you to believe, but I suspect the answer to that is "nothing".

Making the community safe for everyone isn't about "SJW" politics, it's about making the damn hobby friendly to anyone who wants to play it without fear of being harassed out of it. What is wrong with that? Do you need a safe space to be  about other people? Do it in your own damn home.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Nothing to substantiate the claims after an entire year has gone by. Weak sauce.




The claim that she received terrorist threats?  The free press article states that as fact.  Surely, they would have asked to see them.  If I were the reporter who wrote the piece, I would have done so.

If you mean the claim that those threats came from Wyrd staff, that really doesn't matter.  Terrorist threats, which (again) it is factually reported that she received, are never acceptable.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> Also, and somewhat tangentially. . .
> 
> 1) the "feminist agenda" is gender equality under the law and that is it.  Anyone advocating for special treatment for one gender over another or using claims of sexism to overreact to things like the Joker-Harley slap leaked from the set of Suicide Squad is simply calling him/herself a feminist.
> 
> 2) SJW is a horribly misnamed term.  A just society is one in which everyone has equal rights under the law.  Fighting for that ideal is, the last I knew, a good thing.  I mean, who wants the law to be bent so that others have more or superior rights than they do?  I could easily imagine people trying to dismiss Ghandi and King, if they were alive and active in today's climate, with the SJW term.




Disagree entirely with your personal interpretation and/or definitions, but don't care.


----------



## Mecheon

AWizardInDallas said:


> Disagree entirely with your personal interpretation and/or definitions, but don't care.




Then please kindly share your opinions of these

Because whenever I hear the words "Feminist Agenda" I personally just think "What, the agenda of making men and women equal?" and wonder what you are possibly implying.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Disagree entirely with your personal interpretation and/or definitions, but don't care.




And the first part of the post?  Where no one has been advocating for the thing you said you feared?  Where intolerance of harassment and assault by the community appears to be a response embraced by the community, including those like myself who have experienced harassment?


----------



## Obryn

AWizardInDallas said:


> You asked.




Oh!  I thought you were being facetious!


----------



## I'm A Banana

AWizardInDallas said:


> Nothing to substantiate the claims after an entire year has gone by. Weak sauce.




You're still fixated on this one example, but it's jut one stick in the fire. Ultimately, no one is going to "convince" anyone about this particular incident because no one was in the room and no one is in their minds and it's all a bunch of he said/she said at this point. So there's little actual discussion to have about it. 



			
				AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> Fear of unwarranted accusation by people with a social justice warrior bent, a feminist agenda, or Munchhausen syndrome. We all stay home in our little "safe spaces," never meet, never socialize, never game because accusation is accepted as fact and it's too big a risk. The accuser becomes the terrorist.




Again, none of this is particularly relevant. You're a human being, so I'm assuming you also believe that Harassment Is Bad. If harassment is happening at cons, I'm fairly sure you'd agree that that would be a bad thing. 

So, again, the fundamental premise: *Do you agree that there is harassment at cons?* If so, lets move on from whether or not this particular accusation was an example of it, because if you don't dispute that premise then ultimately this particular example doesn't matter because everyone agrees that there is harassment at cons even if this wasn't an example of it.

Once we can explicitly agree that it is a thing that happens, we can maybe have a more productive conversation about what are good things to do with that information.


----------



## Fergurg

Obryn said:


> What drastic action do you fear will be taken?




The assertion that any accusation will be treated as proven fact. Being kicked out of a convention and arrested because someone overhears me talking to someone else and mishears what I say. Being falsely accused by someone with an ax to grind and having no recourse, or even the ability to defend myself against such accusations.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Nah. Seriously, it's hard enough these days to find players without additional layers of crazy.


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> The assertion that any accusation will be treated as proven fact. Being kicked out of a convention and arrested because someone overhears me talking to someone else and mishears what I say. Being falsely accused by someone with an ax to grind and having no recourse, or even the ability to defend myself against such accusations.




When has this happened??? When has THIS been the outcome and not the other side, where real harassment occurs and NOTHING is done about it?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

I'm A Banana said:


> You're still fixated on this one example, but it's jut one stick in the fire. Ultimately, no one is going to "convince" anyone about this particular incident because no one was in the room and no one is in their minds and it's all a bunch of he said/she said at this point. So there's little actual discussion to have about it.
> 
> Again, none of this is particularly relevant. You're a human being, so I'm assuming you also believe that Harassment Is Bad. If harassment is happening at cons, I'm fairly sure you'd agree that that would be a bad thing.
> 
> So, again, the fundamental premise: *Do you agree that there is harassment at cons?* If so, lets move on from whether or not this particular accusation was an example of it, because if you don't dispute that premise then ultimately this particular example doesn't matter because everyone agrees that there is harassment at cons even if this wasn't an example of it.
> 
> Once we can explicitly agree that it is a thing that happens, we can maybe have a more productive conversation about what are good things to do with that information.




I disagree with the premise simply because it's not relevant and refuse to follow the "where there's smoke there's fire" mentality.  Harassment might happen anywhere.  So what.  I prefer to stay focused on the issue at hand, not move on to broad generalizations where even less fact exists.


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> Really? A Lifetime movie? I wonder what prompted you to use Lifetime as an example. I don't think I could possibly read anything into that.




I picked Lifetime because they are notorious for making movies about The Innocent Woman and The Evil Men Who Are Conspiring To Destroy Her. They have been caught lying about actual events.



MadAxe said:


> Ive see the response from the company she has singled out. Nevermind that it's still within reason she isn't lying and he is. Nevermind that any of the multitude of reasons someone could experience what she experience and maybe not want to give or even have the kind of evidence demanded of her.




As the saying goes, incredible claims require incredible evidence. Is it possible that she is telling the truth and simply choosing to not share the proof? It's possible. But not reasonable, as she claimed to have evidence and claimed that she would turn it over. Usually, when people make claims of this level and can prove them when called on it, THEY PROVE THE ACCUSATIONS THEY MAKE. Liars? They turn to "I shouldn't have to prove anything."



MadAxe said:


> Never mind that because her story is not unique. It's being told all the time by other people every day, people being harassed out of stores and conventions. The time for skepticism is over, it's long over. What she describes is happening.




Does this mean that you agree with "The accusation is the evidence" stance? Because it sure sounds like it to me.



MadAxe said:


> I have worked in game stores and I've seen first hand some of what she described. We didn't put up with that nonsense, but it exists. It will keep existing as long as you have folks denying it exists, claiming there is no problem. Some of the professional women in the industry have reported this exact type of behavior.




It will keep existing for as long as people exist. Human nature is full of bad people.



MadAxe said:


> I would ask what it would take for you to believe, but I suspect the answer to that is "nothing".




Proof. Proof that the accusations are true is what it would take. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. But let's start with not having the accuser getting caught lying.



MadAxe said:


> Making the community safe for everyone isn't about "SJW" politics, it's about making the damn hobby friendly to anyone who wants to play it without fear of being harassed out of it. What is wrong with that? Do you need a safe space to be  about other people? Do it in your own damn home.




That's not what this is about; it is about seizing power. The woman said explicitly that she wanted to be in a position of control over the hobby. People who want to make it friendly to anybody who wants to play doesn't start off by calling everybody who dares to not agree with her that drastic action is needed as terrorists and cowards.


----------



## Elf Witch

Wolvercote said:


> Sorry, but it's hatespeech she's selling here. I've been gaming in public stores and at cons for 30+ years and I never heard of anything remotely close to any of this going on. In my experience, if a female is present, behavior improves overall. I've gamed since the early 80s when D&D was new, I'm not buying this at all. Pandering to this is silly. I'm saying enough.




So you are calling every woman who has spoken up about this liars? In the other thread I and another female gamer shared our experiences with dealing with harassment.


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> When has this happened??? When has THIS been the outcome and not the other side, where real harassment occurs and NOTHING is done about it?




Well, I have been falsely accused of domestic violence. So it happened at least once.


----------



## Fergurg

Elf Witch said:


> So you are calling every woman who has spoken up about this liars? In the other thread I and another female gamer shared our experiences with dealing with harassment.




Not all of them. But at least one - the person who wrote this blog post in the first place.

Let me flip the question - are you calling every man who says he was falsely accused liars?


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> I disagree with the premise simply because it's not relevant and refuse to follow the "where there's smoke there's fire" mentality.  Harassment might happen anywhere.  So what.  I prefer to stay focused on the issue at hand, not move on to broad generalizations where even less fact exists.




The existence of harassment is eminently relevant.  That harassment exists and that it should not be tolerated is literally the point of the article linked to in the OP (regardless of what your feelings are on how she expressed that point or on one of the examples she listed), the point of the content of the OP, and of the thread title as well.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Mecheon said:


> Then please kindly share your opinions of these
> 
> Because whenever I hear the words "Feminist Agenda" I personally just think "What, the agenda of making men and women equal?" and wonder what you are possibly implying.




That would be an entirely different discussion, one you're not likely to enjoy. I'll offer that the goal of 3rd wave feminism is not equality. Social justice warriors these days don't actually care about making repairs. Like Klingons, it's the battle that matters.


----------



## barasawa

I like groups with all kinds of people in them. 
I like having females at the game as well,  though if you're a gamer, I don't care if you're male, female, green, vulcan, or whatever, just so long as you play.
When it comes to anyone raping in a game, that's just sick. Go take that stuff to your private fanfic or something, but please don't subject the group to that kind of garbage. 
I'm sure somebody will whine it's some kind of double standard that you can kill the bad guys, but you can't rape. 
Well suck it up buttercup. If you want to argue, wait until a couple of the people you really care about get raped, and then see how you feel about it in game. 
I have no idea how this entire sexist b.s. got started, but it's seriously messing things up.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> The assertion that any accusation will be treated as proven fact. Being kicked out of a convention and arrested because someone overhears me talking to someone else and mishears what I say. Being falsely accused by someone with an ax to grind and having no recourse, or even the ability to defend myself against such accusations.



Yeah, unfounded accusations _suck_. One of the unfounded accusations that suck *a lot* is the "You're lying!" accusation often flung at people who publicly mention their abuse. So you and many victims of harassment have that in common!

The question of what con staff does when an accusation is leveled is a big one, and one I'm sure is tough to get right. So what kind of response would you want a con to have when someone is accused of harassment? If you agree that harassment is a thing that happens at cons (which is apparently remarkably tough to get people to say!), then it is something that people will sometimes legitimately accuse others of doing, often with little evidence aside from their say-so. What do you think should happen then? 

From the perspective of a Hypothetical Con Organizer, you know it's something that your staff is going to absolutely get wrong from time to time - no human being is perfect, and moments of harassment are often riddled with the he said/she said back-and-forth such that truth is impossible to determine. You're going to make mistakes. Do you make the mistake of allowing an accused harasser to walk away even though he's guilty? Do you make the mistake of tossing an innocent person out of your con? Is there some way to negotiate between that binary?

That's a hard question, that a multitude of opinions is going to be useful in addressing. 

It's also a practical question, that people will have to answer.

It's not a political or ideological question at all.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> The existence of harassment is eminently relevant.  That harassment exists and that it should not be tolerated is literally the point of the article linked to in the OP (regardless of what your feelings are on how she expressed that point or on one of the examples she listed), the point of the content of the OP, and of the thread title as well.




Your point of view, not mine.


----------



## Fergurg

MechaPilot said:


> The existence of harassment is eminently relevant.  That harassment exists and that it should not be tolerated is literally the point of the article linked to in the OP (regardless of what your feelings are on how she expressed that point or on one of the examples she listed), the point of the content of the OP, and of the thread title as well.




No, the literal point she was asserting was that every man who didn't agree with her that harassment is everpresent and requires drastic action is either a terrorist or a coward; further, she was asserting as fact the assertion that people disagreeing with her merely proves that the gaming community was filled with terrorists and harassers.


----------



## I'm A Banana

AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise simply because it's not relevant and refuse to follow the "where there's smoke there's fire" mentality. Harassment might happen anywhere. So what. I prefer to stay focused on the issue at hand, not move on to broad generalizations where even less fact exists.



So we agree - harassment happens at cons and it is bad. Then, the actual issue at hand, *what do you think should or could be done to minimize the harassment that happens at cons*?

That's an urgent question that people are in need of good solutions to, and it's important to hear from a diverse array of people on what to do there. Nobody has good answers, it's not an easy solution. 

If it's safe to assume that harassment happens at cons, what do we change to make that less true?


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> Well, I have been falsely accused of domestic violence. So it happened at least once.




Do you have proof? Can you give us all the details of this proof? Does it show without a doubt that someone was misleading about the alleged domestic violence, or was the charge simply dismissed? How is this case representative of ALL cases? Obviously, if you've been falsely accused, then all men accused must have been accused falsely, isn't that the logic?


----------



## MechaPilot

Fergurg said:


> No, the literal point she was asserting was that every man who didn't agree with her that harassment is everpresent and requires drastic action is either a terrorist or a coward; further, she was asserting as fact the assertion that people disagreeing with her merely proves that the gaming community was filled with terrorists and harassers.




I disagree with you about the point of the content linked to by the OP, but surely you could agree with what I said if I amended it to the following:



MechaPilot said:


> The existence of harassment is eminently relevant.  That harassment exists and that it should not be tolerated is literally the point of the content of the OP, and of the thread title as well.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

barasawa said:


> I have no idea how this entire sexist b.s. got started, but it's seriously messing things up.




The article itself levels accusations with the sexist "white male terrorist" label. It's relevant.


----------



## Fergurg

I'm A Banana said:


> Yeah, unfounded accusations _suck_. One of the unfounded accusations that suck *a lot* is the "You're lying!" accusation often flung at people who publicly mention their abuse. So you and many victims of harassment have that in common!




The burden of proof is - and should ALWAYS be - on the accuser, not the accused.



I'm A Banana said:


> The question of what con staff does when an accusation is leveled is a big one, and one I'm sure is tough to get right. So what kind of response would you want a con to have when someone is accused of harassment? If you agree that harassment is a thing that happens at cons (which is apparently remarkably tough to get people to say!), then it is something that people will sometimes legitimately accuse others of doing, often with little evidence aside from their say-so. What do you think should happen then?




If there isn't enough proof to say that more likely than not harassment happened, nothing. Every time.



I'm A Banana said:


> From the perspective of a Hypothetical Con Organizer, you know it's something that your staff is going to absolutely get wrong from time to time - no human being is perfect, and moments of harassment are often riddled with the he said/she said back-and-forth such that truth is impossible to determine. You're going to make mistakes. Do you make the mistake of allowing an accused harasser to walk away even though he's guilty? Do you make the mistake of tossing an innocent person out of your con? Is there some way to negotiate between that binary?




Frankly, no. That's why the "innocent until proven guilty" standard has been accepted by most societies today. Only in the minds who find "The accusation is the evidence" reasonable have a problem with that standard.


----------



## Arnwolf

I really don't want to play a politically correct game where I am constantly worrying about being inappropriate or offending someone.  Politically correctness is for office workers and bureaucrats.  I don't create or play in politically correct worlds.  I like settings that simulate the values of the ancient or medieval world.  And I really love Barbaric settings where slavery and worse is socially acceptable.  Please I don't need people deeply offended playing with me.  And I think me and my group enjoy playing to get away from women.  And I have a feeling we are not a small part of the roleplaying population.

If you have women playing that need to have everything babied down for them then sure go ahead and do it.  It's your game.  But some really want to let loose and enjoy themselves and not worry about politically correctness with their friends.  We have enough of that in public.


----------



## MadAxe

Arnwolf said:


> I really don't want to play a politically correct game where I am constantly worrying about being inappropriate or offending someone.  Politically correctness is for office workers and bureaucrats.  I don't create or play in politically correct worlds.  I like settings that simulate the values of the ancient or medieval world.  And I really love Barbaric settings where slavery and worse is socially acceptable.  Please I don't need people deeply offended playing with me.  And I think me and my group enjoy playing to get away from women.  And I have a feeling we are not a small part of the roleplaying population.
> 
> If you have women playing that need to have everything babied down for them then sure go ahead and do it.  It's your game.  But some really want to let loose and enjoy themselves and not worry about politically correctness with their friends.  We have enough of that in public.




If letting loose is playing a game where slavery is socially acceptable and you consider being a human being having things "babied" down for women then go ahead and enjoy your  on your own, but don't expect conventions and stores to be your special place of safety.


----------



## MechaPilot

Arnwolf said:


> I really don't want to play a politically correct game where I am constantly worrying about being inappropriate or offending someone.  Politically correctness is for office workers and bureaucrats.  I don't create or play in politically correct worlds.  I like settings that simulate the values of the ancient or medieval world.  And I really love Barbaric settings where slavery and worse is socially acceptable.  Please I don't need people deeply offended playing with me.  And I think me and my group enjoy playing to get away from women.  And I have a feeling we are not a small part of the roleplaying population.
> 
> If you have women playing that need to have everything babied down for them then sure go ahead and do it.  It's your game.  But some really want to let loose and enjoy themselves and not worry about politically correctness with their friends.  We have enough of that in public.




Who is saying that you can't let loose and enjoy yourself with your friends?  Especially when you're not in public.  Presumably, your friends share the same preferences that you do.  Unless your preference involves harassing/assaulting real world people or springing character rape on people without letting them know what kind of game content they're agreeing to be part of, by all means play the game your way and have fun.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

I'm A Banana said:


> So we agree - harassment happens at cons and it is bad. Then, the actual issue at hand, *what do you think should or could be done to minimize the harassment that happens at cons*?
> 
> That's an urgent question that people are in need of good solutions to, and it's important to hear from a diverse array of people on what to do there. Nobody has good answers, it's not an easy solution.
> 
> If it's safe to assume that harassment happens at cons, what do we change to make that less true?




It's not an urgent question since the evidence of occurrence is limited to a single, questionable article. As noted, harassment may happen anywhere. A normal person would report it, evade it, or whatever else is necessary to avoid trouble in the first place, not write a summary of alleged occurrences for folks to overreact to or for the purpose of illiciting sympathy or labeling "white males" as terrorists by default.


----------



## Elf Witch

AWizardInDallas said:


> Only if you accept accusation as evidence.  Blind faith in a fiction doesn't make it so.  Also, the odds of ALL the alleged occurrences happening to a single person makes the account even less believable.






Fergurg said:


> Not all of them. But at least one - the person who wrote this blog post in the first place.
> 
> Let me flip the question - are you calling every man who says he was falsely accused liars?




No I am not naive I have been around this world for 58 years and I know that both sexes have members who are willing to hurt someone by lying.


But throwing out this one blog there are plenty of other people talking about their experiences. There is a reason cons are putting in place rules for handling harassment. 

In 1977 I was groped by a well known writer in an elevator at Worldcon when I  went to security to complain they just sighed and said yeah he has been known to do that when he has been drinking. It was known he did these things but hey you don't say anything to a Hugo and nebula winner. In the 80s at major cons that I worked at we were told to watch for a certain writer who harassed female fans, writers and editors. Not hat anything was ever done about it. 

It is well known the harassment that female cospalyers have to deal with from being touched, to have lewd things said to them from perverts trying to get upshots of them when they are on the stairs or bending over to take a drink. Many cons have had to put signs up that cosplay does not equal consent. 

You said you were victim of a false accusation well I was a victim of rape and my rapist got away with it because I had no bruises and was so traumatized I wait a week before I told anyone. Any victim who has been hurt by another person deals with scars. Do you think your trauma was worse than mine? At least it sounds like you got justice which I never did. 

There is a reason a lot of rapist and harassers get away with it and that is because the law is guilty until proven innocent and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I am sorry that someone lied about you but domestic violence does happen and women are usually the victims of it.


And from my understanding this was not just stories that happened to her but stories she had been told from other victims and things she had seen.


----------



## MechaPilot

Fergurg said:


> The burden of proof is - and should ALWAYS be - on the accuser, not the accused.
> 
> 
> 
> If there isn't enough proof to say that more likely than not harassment happened, nothing. Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, no. That's why the "innocent until proven guilty" standard has been accepted by most societies today. Only in the minds who find "The accusation is the evidence" reasonable have a problem with that standard.




Do you think that maybe the con organizer has some burden to enable the collection of proof?  For example, with a sufficient amount of camera coverage so that complaints can at least have a decent chance of being either verified or refuted?  Perhaps with an increased security presence?


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> Do you have proof? Can you give us all the details of this proof? Does it show without a doubt that someone was misleading about the alleged domestic violence, or was the charge simply dismissed? How is this case representative of ALL cases? Obviously, if you've been falsely accused, then all men accused must have been accused falsely, isn't that the logic?




Yes, I do have proof. I have the court transcripts where she admitted that she lied and that I never hurt her. I also have the state law that says that domestic violence accusations are exempt from the laws against perjury.

My point is not that all men have been falsely accused, but that it's not a case where no men have been falsely accused; in a system openly rigged on behalf of the accuser, it probably happens a lot more than you'd hear about. So when someone comes in with an attitude of "The accusation is the evidence", I will attack it with extreme prejudice on a level that the Ku Klux Klan starts taking notes.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> The burden of proof is - and should ALWAYS be - on the accuser, not the accused.
> ...
> If there isn't enough proof to say that more likely than not harassment happened, nothing. Every time.
> ...
> Frankly, no. That's why the "innocent until proven guilty" standard has been accepted by most societies today. Only in the minds who find "The accusation is the evidence" reasonable have a problem with that standard.




In a court of law, I'm down with that. Courts of law are *made* to get at the truth! (They often fail at that, but that's Another Story. ) Proof should *absolutely* be a prerequisite to locking someone up and throwing away the key!

I think when you're talking about Jimbo The Con Volunteer who is just hearing two contradictory reports from two people, "proof" is an impractically high bar. Proof isn't going to be available all the time even when it happened, and even where it is available, it's not like our good buddy Jimbo is some sort of elite SVU harassment Sherlock or something. He's Jimbo. He volunteered for this con because he loves _Warhammer_. 

So lets just say our Hypothetical Con Organizer goes with that policy. Jimbo might just be some nerd at a con, but he'll look for proof, and where none is found, he'll do nothing. What this means in practice is that you make the mistake of letting some harassment happen, and letting some harassers off the hook. Even if Jimbo catches a few of the awful people, he'll never catch 'em all, and some harassment will happen that con-goers will just have to suffer through. 

So some people come forward and they say "I was harassed!" and some others say "You have no proof!", but ultimately, because harassment happens at cons, and because "proof" is not always available when that happens, you get into a situation where some harassment happens and goes unpunished. That's just the logical consequence of this policy.

Ultimately, I don't see this policy doing anything to reduce incidents of harassment at cons. In fact, it could _increase_ them! So anyone who doesn't want to get harassed at a con is better off just not showing up. So, because women are harassed more often than men, you end up with less women at your con (and less men, when men married to or the sons of or fathers of women who get harassed don't want to come, either.) Ultimately, your population of Con-folk is lower than it could otherwise be. 

That doesn't seem like a good solution to me. That pretty much sounds like the status quo.

What would you do to improve the status quo? How can we reduce the number of people who are harassed at cons?


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> Yes, I do have proof. I have the court transcripts where she admitted that she lied and that I never hurt her. I also have the state law that says that domestic violence accusations are exempt from the laws against perjury.
> 
> My point is not that all men have been falsely accused, but that it's not a case where no men have been falsely accused; in a system openly rigged on behalf of the accuser, it probably happens a lot more than you'd hear about. So when someone comes in with an attitude of "The accusation is the evidence", I will attack it with extreme prejudice on a level that the Ku Klux Klan starts taking notes.




Well surprised I have to say it but I guess I do...
Your experience isn't all experiences. Many women are abused by their domestic partners, or even men by their domestic partners.

Her experience isn't ALL experiences. Not ALL women are harassed. But unfortunately in our hobby, many are, and it HAS to stop. It is a serious problem. Not because she spoke out once, but because many women have spoken out, and it's time to start believing. Every time a woman posts something similar to this it is met with cries of "not all men" and "I haven't experienced it". 

It's time to believe.


----------



## I'm A Banana

AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> It's not an urgent question since the evidence of occurrence is limited to a single, questionable article. As noted, harassment may happen anywhere.



Those statements are kind of contradictory, no? If harassment may happen anywhere, then it may also happen at cons, and so, logically, harassment happens at cons (even if we disregard this bit of evidence). 



> A normal person would report it, evade it, or whatever else is necessary to avoid trouble in the first place, not write a summary of alleged occurrences for folks to overreact to or for the purpose of illiciting sympathy or labeling "white males" as terrorists by default.




That's not really relevant, so I'll repeat my question: what can cons do to reduce the number of people that are harassed there?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Arnwolf said:


> I really don't want to play a politically correct game where I am constantly worrying about being inappropriate or offending someone.  Politically correctness is for office workers and bureaucrats.  I don't create or play in politically correct worlds.  I like settings that simulate the values of the ancient or medieval world.  And I really love Barbaric settings where slavery and worse is socially acceptable.  Please I don't need people deeply offended playing with me.  And I think me and my group enjoy playing to get away from women.  And I have a feeling we are not a small part of the roleplaying population.
> 
> If you have women playing that need to have everything babied down for them then sure go ahead and do it.  It's your game.  But some really want to let loose and enjoy themselves and not worry about politically correctness with their friends.  We have enough of that in public.




Agree entirely. I have started to actively abandon products that insist on injecting politically correct drivel, cultural revision, gender issues, or other modern, revisionist concepts. I abandoned using a rather popular game world in favor or my own for the same reason. I too refuse to walk on egg shells or pander a company's politically correct garbage.


----------



## MadAxe

AWizardInDallas said:


> Agree entirely. I have started to actively abandon products that insist on injecting politically correct drivel, cultural revision, gender issues, or other modern, revisionist concepts. I abandoned using a rather popular game world in favor or my own for the same reason. I too refuse to walk on egg shells or pander a company's politically correct garbage.




Then abandon D&D. It is officially injected with "politically correct drivel, cultural revisions, genders issues," etc. Walk on egg shells no longer, you are free to be pandered to by other garbage.


----------



## Elf Witch

AWizardInDallas said:


> Only if you accept accusation as evidence.  Blind faith in a fiction doesn't make it so.  Also, the odds of ALL the alleged occurrences happening to a single person makes the account even less believable.






Fergurg said:


> Yes, I do have proof. I have the court transcripts where she admitted that she lied and that I never hurt her. I also have the state law that says that domestic violence accusations are exempt from the laws against perjury.
> 
> My point is not that all men have been falsely accused, but that it's not a case where no men have been falsely accused; in a system openly rigged on behalf of the accuser, it probably happens a lot more than you'd hear about. So when someone comes in with an attitude of "The accusation is the evidence", I will attack it with extreme prejudice on a level that the Ku Klux Klan starts taking notes.




Tell me how it is rigged? With any crime being reported there has to be evidence.   It would take a lot to convict an innocent man or woman of abuse without any evidence of medical records showing injury to the alleged victim. Where are the witnesses, where are the 911 calls. I believe innocent people get convinced of crimes they didn't commit but those crimes did happen.  Again in our country the burden of proving a crime is on the state.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

I'm A Banana said:


> Those statements are kind of contradictory, no? If harassment may happen anywhere, then it may also happen at cons, and so, logically, harassment happens at cons (even if we disregard this bit of evidence).
> 
> 
> 
> That's not really relevant, so I'll repeat my question: what can cons do to reduce the number of people that are harassed there?




Flawed logic.  Attempt to go from specific to general.  Not playing.  Collect actual data? Grow up? Stay home? Deal with it, same as you would anywhere else? Realize that the world isn't your personal oyster? Don't hang with the wrong crowd? Certainly not an anti-harassment baby patrol. Again, not an urgent question based on one article.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MadAxe said:


> Then abandon D&D. It is officially injected with "politically correct drivel, cultural revisions, genders issues," etc. Walk on egg shells no longer, you are free to be pandered to by other garbage.




I did. Next.


----------



## MadAxe

AWizardInDallas said:


> I did. Next.




This is a D&D board. Move on, then. Next.


----------



## Fergurg

I'm A Banana said:


> In a court of law, I'm down with that. Courts of law are *made* to get at the truth! (They often fail at that, but that's Another Story. ) Proof should *absolutely* be a prerequisite to locking someone up and throwing away the key!
> 
> I think when you're talking about Jimbo The Con Volunteer who is just hearing two contradictory reports from two people, "proof" is an impractically high bar. Proof isn't going to be available all the time even when it happened, and even where it is available, it's not like our good buddy Jimbo is some sort of elite SVU harassment Sherlock or something. He's Jimbo. He volunteered for this con because he loves _Warhammer_.
> 
> So lets just say our Hypothetical Con Organizer goes with that policy. Jimbo might just be some nerd at a con, but he'll look for proof, and where none is found, he'll do nothing. What this means in practice is that you make the mistake of letting some harassment happen, and letting some harassers off the hook. Even if Jimbo catches a few of the awful people, he'll never catch 'em all, and some harassment will happen that con-goers will just have to suffer through.
> 
> So some people come forward and they say "I was harassed!" and some others say "You have no proof!", but ultimately, because harassment happens at cons, and because "proof" is not always available when that happens, you get into a situation where some harassment happens and goes unpunished. That's just the logical consequence of this policy.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't see this policy doing anything to reduce incidents of harassment at cons. In fact, it could _increase_ them! So anyone who doesn't want to get harassed at a con is better off just not showing up. So, because women are harassed more often than men, you end up with less women at your con (and less men, when men married to or the sons of or fathers of women who get harassed don't want to come, either.
> 
> That doesn't seem like a good solution to me. That pretty much sounds like the status quo.
> 
> What would you do to improve the status quo? How can we reduce the number of people who are harassed at cons?




I believe that it is better for a harasser to get away with it than to punish an innocent person. It is always better to allow people to avoid justice than to create a system where you punish the innocent along with the guilty. 

To put it another way, if it could be positively guaranteed that all harassment goes away forever at every convention that takes the approach that all accusations will be treated as absolute proof - and really, the only way to significantly end harassment would be to do this - then the situation would be worse because innocent people would get caught in the net.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MadAxe said:


> This is a D&D board. Move on, then. Next.




No. This is the General Tabletop Gaming Discussion forum and I have just as much right to be here as you. A pity, it was civil until now. Sweet irony.


----------



## Mecheon

AWizardInDallas said:


> Flawed logic.  Attempt to go from specific to general.  Not playing.  Collect actual data? Grow up? Stay home? Deal with it, same as you would anywhere else? Realize that the world isn't your personal oyster? Don't hang with the wrong crowd? Certainly not an anti-harassment baby patrol. Again, not an urgent question based on one article.




Then how's about how the rest of the world has been going for the past few years? Like, this is an issue happening *everywhere*. You're an American, you can't honestly be ignoring how your country is full of cops murdering people because they are taught they can get away with it, or how dozens of former celebrities are being sued for basically the same thing that happened in the original report, except none of the evidence came out earlier because the victims were too scared to 'report it like a normal person' as you said

I can't be bothered gathering evidence because there's so much of it out there that it wouldn't be 'gathering' so much as 'pointing you at any news'

Incidentally:



AWizardInDallas said:


> Agree entirely. I have started to actively abandon products that insist on injecting politically correct drivel, cultural revision, gender issues, or other modern, revisionist concepts. I abandoned using a rather popular game world in favor or my own for the same reason. I too refuse to walk on egg shells or pander a company's politically correct garbage.




I mentally replace "political correctness" with "being a decent person", as personally? I've found anyone arguing AGAINST political correctness to doing it for the purposes of being a bit of a jerk

Works reflect the age in which they are created. I'm sorry you're too far behind to notice that we're moving into an age where we aren't being horrible people to each other any more.


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> I believe that it is better for a harasser to get away with it than to punish an innocent person. It is always better to allow people to avoid justice than to create a system where you punish the innocent along with the guilty.
> 
> To put it another way, if it could be positively guaranteed that all harassment goes away forever at every convention that takes the approach that all accusations will be treated as absolute proof - and really, the only way to significantly end harassment would be to do this - then the situation would be worse because innocent people would get caught in the net.




Under your requirements harassment of any kind, short of that which is recorded by video, would be dismissed as false.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Mecheon said:


> Then how's about how the rest of the world has been going for the past few years? Like, this is an issue happening *everywhere*. You're an American, you can't honestly be ignoring how your country is full of racist, sexist corrupt cops murdering people because they are taught they can get away with it, or how dozens of former celebrities are being sued for basically the same thing that happened in the original report, except none of the evidence came out earlier because the victims were too scared to 'report it like a normal person' as you said
> 
> I can't be bothered gathering evidence because there's so much of it out there that it wouldn't be 'gathering' so much as 'pointing you at any news'
> 
> Incidentally:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentally replace "political correctness" with "being a decent person", as personally? I've found anyone arguing AGAINST political correctness to doing it for the purposes of being a bit of a jerk
> 
> Works reflect the age in which they are created. I'm sorry you're too far behind to notice that we're moving into an age where we aren't being horrible people to each other any more.




I decline to broaden the discussion.  Your view point, not mine.


----------



## Mecheon

AWizardInDallas said:


> I decline to broaden the discussion.  Your view point, not mine.




Your view point is either ignorant or willfully stupid.

This is an issue beyond gaming. You refusing to see that is ignorance, or willful stupidity.


----------



## Fergurg

Elf Witch said:


> Tell me how it is rigged? With any crime being reported there has to be evidence.   It would take a lot to convict an innocent man or woman of abuse without any evidence of medical records showing injury to the alleged victim. Where are the witnesses, where are the 911 calls. I believe innocent people get convinced of crimes they didn't commit but those crimes did happen.  Again in our country the burden of proving a crime is on the state.




Because it wasn't a criminal prosecution, but a family court. Because it doesn't have the authority to actually send people to jail, and because it technically was not a criminal court, the normal checks and balances given to the accused do not apply, just like traffic court. When I demanded to see the medical report in court, the judge explicitly told me, "It is not her job to prove that she was a victim."

And by state law, accusations of domestic violence are explicitly exempted from laws against perjury. It was not technically a criminal conviction, but the fact that an accusation was made forbids me from having a job having anything to do with law enforcement, including working for a company that has a contract with law enforcement. Yes, the law explicitly says that there do not even have to be charges filed - just a police report made that the accuser does not have to sign.


----------



## I'm A Banana

AWizardInDallas said:


> Flawed logic.  Attempt to go from specific to general.



There's no attempt to go from specific to general, actually. Quite the inverse! Generally, as you correctly pointed out, harassment happens. Cons, being a subset of "things that happen," also thus include harassment. Unless you're asserting that harassment happens generally but then doesn't happen at cons, the only other option left to you is "harassment happens at cons," which I infer that we agree on, despite your strange reluctance to actually declare that.



> Not playing.  Collect actual data? Grow up? Stay home? Deal with it, same as you would anywhere else? Realize that the world isn't your personal oyster? Don't hang with the wrong crowd?  Certainly not an anti-harassment baby patrol.



None of those are things *cons themselves* can do. That's a question that's worth asking, here. So, to repeat it again, what can cons do to reduce the number of people that are harassed there? 



> Again, not an urgent question based on one article.



It is QUITE an urgent question for con-organizers and con-goers, actually! And it seems to be the only question where there is not yet broad agreement on policy, and where it can get really unpleasant for people on the extreme ends! If you care about gaming cons, it is really a very important question!


----------



## Elf Witch

Fergurg said:


> I believe that it is better for a harasser to get away with it than to punish an innocent person. It is always better to allow people to avoid justice than to create a system where you punish the innocent along with the guilty.
> 
> To put it another way, if it could be positively guaranteed that all harassment goes away forever at every convention that takes the approach that all accusations will be treated as absolute proof - and really, the only way to significantly end harassment would be to do this - then the situation would be worse because innocent people would get caught in the net.




You know that they are not just tossing people out based on one person's word. When a complaint is made they investigate it. If there are camera they look at them they talk to the person who has been accused. 

I know people who run Worldcons and the people who have been tossed out were seen harassing other cons goers by witnesses who were neutral in the matter. Usually when someone accuses  someone and there is not collaborating evidence they talk to the person accused and let them know it has been said and that if it is true they need to stop.  

You are acting like there is a posse of angry women going around cons accusing innocent men of harassing them with the sole purpose of getting them kicked out.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Mecheon said:


> Your view point is either ignorant or willfully stupid.
> 
> This is an issue beyond gaming. You refusing to see that is ignorance, or willful stupidity.




Discussion terminated due to lack of manners.


----------



## Elf Witch

Fergurg said:


> Because it wasn't a criminal prosecution, but a family court. Because it doesn't have the authority to actually send people to jail, and because it technically was not a criminal court, the normal checks and balances given to the accused do not apply, just like traffic court. When I demanded to see the medical report in court, the judge explicitly told me, "It is not her job to prove that she was a victim."
> 
> And by state law, accusations of domestic violence are explicitly exempted from laws against perjury. It was not technically a criminal conviction, but the fact that an accusation was made forbids me from having a job having anything to do with law enforcement, including working for a company that has a contract with law enforcement. Yes, the law explicitly says that there do not even have to be charges filed - just a police report made that the accuser does not have to sign.




You are right family court is different it is to protect the victims of abuse from their abuser. And that is not true of every state in many states in family court lying under oath is perjury and can get you jail time. I have no doubt some ugly things go on in family court from people seeking revenge on another family member. 

But this is not what we talking about we are talking about strangers harassing other people in public places.


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> Under your requirements harassment of any kind, short of that which is recorded by video, would be dismissed as false.




Not necessarily. I would also accept neutral witnesses, or simply watching the accused more closely to see for myself what is going on. What I would not accept is "She said you're harassing her, so you have to go;" the standard that many are pushing for.


----------



## Fergurg

Elf Witch said:


> You know that they are not just tossing people out based on one person's word. When a complaint is made they investigate it. If there are camera they look at them they talk to the person who has been accused.
> 
> I know people who run Worldcons and the people who have been tossed out were seen harassing other cons goers by witnesses who were neutral in the matter. Usually when someone accuses  someone and there is not collaborating evidence they talk to the person accused and let them know it has been said and that if it is true they need to stop.
> 
> You are acting like there is a posse of angry women going around cons accusing innocent men of harassing them with the sole purpose of getting them kicked out.




I think there is a posse of angry women going around demanding that accusations be treated as evidence. Hell, a few months ago, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn testified before the United Nations literally saying that people making accusations of harassment shouldn't have to prove them.


----------



## Fergurg

Elf Witch said:


> You are right family court is different it is to protect the victims of abuse from their abuser. And that is not true of every state in many states in family court lying under oath is perjury and can get you jail time. I have no doubt some ugly things go on in family court from people seeking revenge on another family member.
> 
> But this is not what we talking about we are talking about strangers harassing other people in public places.




Actuall, we are talking about _accusations_ of harassment and the desire for some people, like the person who wrote the blog post that this started with, to have accusations declared as proof.


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> I think there is a posse of angry women going around demanding that accusations be treated as evidence. Hell, a few months ago, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn testified before the United Nations literally saying that people making accusations of harassment shouldn't have to prove them.




Oh, Gamergater. Couldn't you have said that at the beginning? Farewell.


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> Oh, Gamergater. Couldn't you have said that at the beginning? Farewell.




OK, I'll bite. What are you talking about?


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> OK, I'll bite. What are you talking about?



LOL


----------



## Elf Witch

Arnwolf said:


> I really don't want to play a politically correct game where I am constantly worrying about being inappropriate or offending someone.  Politically correctness is for office workers and bureaucrats.  I don't create or play in politically correct worlds.  I like settings that simulate the values of the ancient or medieval world.  And I really love Barbaric settings where slavery and worse is socially acceptable.  Please I don't need people deeply offended playing with me.  And I think me and my group enjoy playing to get away from women.  And I have a feeling we are not a small part of the roleplaying population.
> 
> If you have women playing that need to have everything babied down for them then sure go ahead and do it.  It's your game.  But some really want to let loose and enjoy themselves and not worry about politically correctness with their friends.  We have enough of that in public.




I am really curious what DnD did that was so politically correct to make you stop playing it? That is not a snarky question as someone who has played all the editions I don't see where it became political correct  unless you are talking about taking off the ridiculous strength caps on female PCs which was way back in the early 80s.

I am also curious how you think that what you chose to do in your home game has anything to do with gamers harassing and groping other gamers? In the game we loot and steal I am pretty sure you wouldn't be okay with your home being looted after a storm or having another gamer walk off with your gaming books at con. So you have slavery in your game I suspect rape does that mean you are okay with either in the real world?

How is my wanting to be allowed to enjoy my hobby without being harassed politically correct?


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> LOL




I understand that you're a little bit stupid. But you want to explain your comment?


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> I understand that you're a little bit stupid. But you want to explain your comment?




Alas, I am far too stupid to expand upon my comment. Carry on, mental giant! Bigotry has so few stewards and you are one of its tallest!


----------



## Fergurg

MadAxe said:


> Alas, I am far too stupid to expand upon my comment. Carry on, mental giant! Bigotry has so few stewards and you are one of its tallest!




Your doubling down on your non-sequitur proves that my assessment of your stupidity is correct. So I will put you on "ignore" and be done with you.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> I believe that it is better for a harasser to get away with it than to punish an innocent person. It is always better to allow people to avoid justice than to create a system where you punish the innocent along with the guilty.




That's certainly logically consistent! Ultimately, it just means that in your view, someone being harassed at a con is a lesser harm than someone being tossed out of a con for being accused of harassment that they didn't actually commit. 

I'm afraid I can't really agree with your harm assessment, myself. When I compare the harm that I see from getting tossed out of a con (Anger, frustration, injustice, financial loss, humiliation, wounded pride), it seems much less severe than the harm that I see from me or someone I love getting sexually assaulted at a con. The two aren't even on the same wavelength. In general, our legal code seems to agree with me (in that getting wrongly tossed out of a con isn't a crime, and that sexual assault is), and most religious morality would also agree with me (in the Christian tradition, a big example would be Matthew 5:10-11, but also 1 Peter 2:19, and many other examples of people being rewarded for patience and perseverance under false accusations; meanwhile, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 gives some examples of what might happen to you if you try an unwanted sexual advance), so I don't think that's entirely my personal bias speaking. 

I imagine your experiences probably help describe why you come down in a different place than the Bible and the Law and me on this, though. That false accusation must've really been rough. 



> To put it another way, if it could be positively guaranteed that all harassment goes away forever at every convention that takes the approach that all accusations will be treated as absolute proof - and really, the only way to significantly end harassment would be to do this - then the situation would be worse because innocent people would get caught in the net.




I think there are ways to reduce harassment at cons without giving someone carte blanche to throw out whoever just by making an accusation. One way that our Hypothetical Con Organizer could help is by, say, including panels on harassment and sexual abuse at the con itself. Making con-goers sign a behavior policy might be good. Our HCO could also consider a sliding system, such as a "one warning" system where it takes more than one accusation by more than one person to chuck someone out. Those all have their flaws, but the goal isn't perfection, of course, it's just *better.* Those all would seem better to me! I'm sure there are other ideas out there!


----------



## Elf Witch

Fergurg said:


> I think there is a posse of angry women going around demanding that accusations be treated as evidence. Hell, a few months ago, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn testified before the United Nations literally saying that people making accusations of harassment shouldn't have to prove them.






Fergurg said:


> Actuall, we are talking about _accusations_ of harassment and the desire for some people, like the person who wrote the blog post that this started with, to have accusations declared as proof.




That is ludicrous there are not posse of angry women going around cons doing this. 

And what we are asking people to do is to listen and be more aware that this kind of thing happens.  And not treat the people sharing their stories as liars. If you noticed I treated you with respect I didn't call you a liar I didn't say that I find it hard to believe your story or that in my experience that never happens. Unless you are sitting on a jury or a cop or you are con security then instead of voicing doubt how about voicing okay what can we do to prevent these kind of things happening. How can we make gaming spaces safe for all and that includes protecting people from false accusations.

In these discussions you have several choices one is to believe that things like this has happened even if you doubt this one person story. Or you can refuse to believe that anything like this happens.

Occam razor comes into play here what is more believable that every person who has spoken out about being harassed is lying or that some are telling the truth?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

And the are right. They don't have to prove them. They however are not entitled to make it public without prove and they have to go to police so that there may be an investigation.

Here in germany there was a case where a vip was accused by his wife and the medial hype against him made it hard for him to prove his innocence.

You are innocent until proven otherwise. If you don't take that seriously innocent people will get to jail.

I know that is really a difficult topic, because if the police does not believe the victims what should they do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Since I got xp for the post i feel the urge to clarify:

That does not mean that if the guilt cannot be proven, that someone is not guilty or that accusations without prove are wrong. It is also wrong in any way to blame the victim. It is also wrong to deny the existence of something just because you have not experienced it yourself and to accuse the probable victim of other reasons to accuse someone. Even if that was true, you would be doing exactly the same: accusing someone without proof.


----------



## EthanSental

deleted - kinda of already covered in an earlier post.


----------



## Obryn

Fergurg said:


> The assertion that any accusation will be treated as proven fact. Being kicked out of a convention and arrested because someone overhears me talking to someone else and mishears what I say. Being falsely accused by someone with an ax to grind and having no recourse, or even the ability to defend myself against such accusations.



False accusations suck, yes, and getting kicked out of a convention due to a malicious lie would suck. Can we also agree that getting groped or harassed at a convention would suck? It seems there's a lot of uncertainty on this point downthread so, can we at least level-set? Both things are bad, and both things can happen?

I've seen at least one survey of female con-goers' experiences with harassment, with a large sample size (>3,000). I've also seen a large number of women share their personal experiences with harassment, in this thread and others.

Is there a similar gamer-specific survey of the prevalence of false accusations with the consequence of being kicked out of a convention?


----------



## dave2008

Taneras said:


> One incident is one too many, ...
> 
> ..., its more skepticism at how big of a problem this is within our community.




These statements seem to be in conflict.   

I would suggest that if one incident is one to many then it is a big problem in our community and that it is irrelevant if it is more or less the what occurs in larger, wider population/community as whole.


----------



## dave2008

Fergurg said:


> To put it another way, if it could be positively guaranteed that all harassment goes away forever at every convention that takes the approach that all accusations will be treated as absolute proof - and really, the only way to significantly end harassment would be to do this - then the situation would be worse because innocent people would get caught in the net.




And to remain the same means that victims get caught in the net.  I would rather work to help victims than overly protect the innocent.  I am sure there is a tipping point somewhere, but we aren't close yet.


----------



## Neonchameleon

AWizardInDallas said:


> Agreed. The vast majority of the article is completely unsubstantiated. I've had women at my table many times over the years without issue, including wives and girlfriends.  As a matter of fact, I ran a campaign for two years that was entirely collage-aged women with males bouncing in and out of the campaign.  Never a single issue.  Not one; everyone was utterly polite, not even a rules dispute the entire time.  No, this article is an extension of the social justice warrior syndrome and feminism sweeping the internet. It's unsubstantiated crap.




From this I can gather that you are either extremely lucky, living in a bubble, or most likely oblivious.

To take my experiences this year. Of three groups, two of  them mixed, there have been issues with two of them.

The first is an all male group. I'm the DM - and have a sharp eye one eye on one of my players every time that player's PC comes into a position of power over an NPC and especially a female one. It _might_ just be the character he's playing, but I don't think so.

The second is a mixed group that plays in a public place - with normally a 50% gender balance. And the reception to one new player was decidedly frosty (and I'm pretty sure he will not be coming back) for a whole range of things including ravishing a plague ridden NPC he'd just rescued (as well as messing up party tactics).

That's this year alone. So it's only two players with limited hard evidence about either.

But if those players were in the same group and egging each other on it would be a whole different story. Tabletop RPGs let you lay your id bare - and like minded toxic individuals can find each other far more readily - and different tables can be very different. (See this Penny Arcade strip for an illustration, and I have no doubt all these tables exist in numbers that would worry me).

So if your table is fine that says good things about you. But because of the isolated and silo'd nature of the tabletop gaming "community", split into small clusters of about half a dozen individuals most of the time it's almost an ideal situation for things to fester in with the worst people grouping together and encouraging each other (indeed it's hard to imagine a better recipie for a community that creates festering groups than one organised on a basically cellular structure with one person in authority and where your imagination and its darker parts are frequently given free rein).  And you personally won't see it because you'll probably never be a fly on the wall in one of those groups at home, and you won't be a target for anyone from there at a con.


----------



## Ghal Maraz

Latining's 'Tabletop gaming has a White Male Terrorism Problem' is not less inflammatory as a title than Desbourogh's 'In defence of rape', IMHO.

Are these kinds of situations real in social/crowded/family environments? Yes, sadly.

Are they to avoid? Yes.

Are they solely due to white males? No.

Are they restricted to tabletop gaming environment? Certainly no.

Are they plaguing the whole tabletop community? I personally don't think so.

When making circumstantiated accusations, should one try to offer some proof? Quite so.

Should witnesses stay silent? Not at all.

Should offenders/harassers, who are caught out, be accused/comdamned/kicked out of conventions-gaming circles-shops (all of these things)? Sure.

Can someone insert fictional rape/violence/harassment in his games, with all present having no problem with it, in not-public environments? Sure, go ahead, it's your game, do whatever you want in your game, as long as anyone hasn't got a problem with it.

Helton's article is a good remainder. Latining's blog one not so much, because I feel she is using a triggering and trolling title to give strength to her point of view, because she is using a kind of narrative approach which doesn't clarify if she's writing about herself or someone else and because she is openly overgeneralising (and, even more so, because at least one of her stronger accusations is being called out as fictitious and unproven... Mind you, Wyrd's response could be the one fictitious. I think this particular aspect should be watched with particular attention in the future, to see how that story goes on).

I hope I'm not sounding dismissive of people's personal experiences with harassment/abuse/rape/threats. I just find that generalising is not good for anyone or anything.


----------



## Taneras

dave2008 said:


> These statements seem to be in conflict.
> 
> I would suggest that if one incident is one to many then it is a big problem in our community and that it is irrelevant if it is more or less the what occurs in larger, wider population/community as whole.




It seems you're just arguing semantics.  Surely you understand the difference between 1 person in 10 years claiming harassment and hundreds claiming harassment each year.  If you want to call the former a "big problem" then what do we call the latter?  A "huge ultra mega gigantic problem"?

You might not agree, but most people operate under the idea that there are varying degrees to how big/serious a problem can be.



dave2008 said:


> And to remain the same means that victims get caught in the net.





Possibly, it would all depend on what behavioral rules each table top group/hobby shop/community event has in place.  This isn't a false dichotomy, the only choices aren't kick the alleged bully out of the group/shop/convention or ignore the person claiming that harassment took place.  Separating the parties and encouraging people to find DM's/groups that they enjoy playing with, mentioning to everyone that harassment won't be tolerated, keeping a closer eye on someone who's had a harassment claim against them, and encouraging the people within the group/shop/event to report harassment they've experienced or seen (if you have 3 people who all claim to have seen the same thing then I think its much easier to take action as opposed to just a 1 on 1 where both people are claiming the opposite).




dave2008 said:


> I would rather work to help victims than overly protect the innocent.





It would seem that there are some deeply differing ideological differences here, as this sort of talk scares me frankly.  It might seem like a good idea at first, until you're the one being thrown out on a baseless claim.  There's a reason why our legal system isn't built like that, because the ones that were in the past were quite horrible and open to abuse.  Sure this isn't a court of law and we aren't sentencing people to jail time, but if that's the better stance for our legal system to take why shouldn't we run our groups/shops/communities in the same manner?



I'm A Banana said:


> People being harassed has nothing to do with a political agenda.




So what's up with creating an article where the bulk of your evidence comes from of a blog who's title went something along the lines of "white male terrorism in table top gaming".  That's identity politics plain and simple.  Perhaps the people involved in reporting this harassment had no idea that their stories would be featured in a blog post with such a title, and perhaps they'd be against it, but that title does nothing to solve the problem and only creates reasons for people to be defensive.


----------



## Benji

It's only identity politics if it's not your identity. otherwise it's called 'Having an awful experience and telling people about it'. The article just recounts experiences and identifies a train of thought these experiences have lead to. If it makes a the reader think about identity in gaming that only indicates that the reader is human.

I'd like to share my experience. I'm a gamer who used to run really graphic horror stories. I still do. But five, maybe ten years ago, my response, would have been "If you can't stand my game, maybe it isn't for you" but then, I went from a situation of gaming with one woman, once a month or so, to gaming with at least one woman in my group every week. And you know what? Listening to them, it became clear my stories brushed a nerve. I did some research and with the girls help, began to understand that I was both assuming all kinds of things. at my table, I had a rape survivor I didn't know about. I'd been pushing buttons I shouldn't have. I backed off a bit and after having safe meetings with various members of my group I worked out that most of them had at some point in their lives(not always in gaming) had what they'd term a 'near miss'. Bringing that environment into the game where they came to have fun meant that they were experiencing those emotions again. Those emotions made them feel like second class citizens in our gaming group.

So I don't run those stories anymore. Except for that first girl, cause she's openly said she's fine with it. I can get my horror kicks other ways.

In the past five years, I've been lucky enough to game with some pretty strong women and they've opened my eyes to assumptions and prejudices that I held (and I'm a reasonably nice guy, so if it's possible that I'm bias....) and allowed me to run a more accepting game.  Rule #1 of gaming shouldn't be 'everyone is having fun' it should be 'everyone feel safe'. Then the fun follows.

Now I read that article and my first instinct is still to go 'Is it real?' but I get past it. Because I've seen enough to believe it could be. What if that story was my wife? She's been gaming longer than I have, but people still think she's the rookie. More scarily, what, in fifteen years time, if that's my daughter? Do I want to raise her into that culture? Should I stop her from being interested in gaming?

But then I remember that it's more women in gaming that helped educate me. And it's up to the good guys to help. And as a DM or players, we have to be aware and alert that this is going on and act to stop it in our hobby. Maybe that doesn't require you to do anything because your game is ok. Maybe it requires you to remind players that certain jokes aren't funny if you think about it. Maybe it requires a bit more. That way we get more women in and they don't have to feel like the lone voice.


----------



## EthanSental

Neo - in the game you mention, where the new player ravishes a plague ridden NPC, not another players character - are we talking about basically an idiot weirdo in this case that his roleplaying behavior is a dick an was offensive? Of was he making continual eye contact toward one of the females?  
Everyone will have a different reaction, some will say - man that guys is an idiot let's not invite him back.  Where as some might say it made them so uncomfortable they don't want to play if he's playing.

I'm going with I am a Banana - let's discuss what we can do to make the games played at cons and at stores better for all involved.  Peoples home group don't seem to be the issue as far as harassment from the posts in this thread.

just saw your post Benji, well done on adapting your style to allow everyone to enjoy the game.


----------



## cmad1977

AWizardInDallas said:


> Fear of unwarranted accusation by people with a social justice warrior bent, a feminist agenda, or Munchhausen syndrome. We all stay home in our little "safe spaces," never meet, never socialize, never game because accusation is accepted as fact and it's too big a risk.  The accuser becomes the terrorist.




Haha be our guest. If you're really afraid of all that enjoy your safe space. I'll be in a store with groups of people playing games.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Thanks to everyone who wants to actually contribute to the conversation about making gaming spaces better places for everyone.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> So what's up with creating an article where the bulk of your evidence comes from of a blog who's title went something along the lines of "white male terrorism in table top gaming".  That's identity politics plain and simple.  Perhaps the people involved in reporting this harassment had no idea that their stories would be featured in a blog post with such a title, and perhaps they'd be against it, but that title does nothing to solve the problem and only creates reasons for people to be defensive.




I'm not sure what article you're talking about, outside of a link to the post in the lede to show why this piece was written, I don't actually reference anything from that piece. All of the incidents discussed in my present article came from interviews with women over the course of the last week.

I get that people don't like being called a terrorist, I was not happy about that piece when it started circulating in my social media, but then after reading it closely a few times, and thinking about the experiences that friends of mine have had, and that I have experienced, being women in gaming, I realized that being inflammatory didn't make the article wrong. If people are getting upset over being compared to terrorists, then perhaps instead of lashing out they should take a look at the behavior that is getting themselves called terrible things.


----------



## Fildrigar

I'm A Banana said:


> How can we reduce the number of people who are harassed at cons?




I realize that the question is not directed at me, but being a convention organizer, I'll answer it for you.

1 ) Have a robust Anti-Harassment Policy. ( Not some weaksauce one that just quotes Wheaton's Law. You can find many good examples via the google machine. ) 

2 ) Ensure that everyone who attends your convention has the opportunity to read your policy and must acknowledge that they have seen it. ( Via click through if ticket bought online, via signing a document at registration if ticket bought day of show. )

3 ) Train all of your staff and volunteers in said policy.

4 ) Prominently feature your policy in various places. ( Repost it in social media, have it printed on signs at the convention. ) Anti-Harassment Policies serve several purposes. They set expectations of behavior and can reduce the number of incidents merely by existing. They also signal to people who have had bad experiences at other venues that they are welcome and can expect to be taken seriously if issues arise. 

5 ) If an incident is reported, take swift action.


----------



## Jeanneliza

I have read through the responses here and one thing stands out to me. Those who are most angered by the article using the term white male terrorist seem to overlook the fact that Christopher stated after reading that article he asked women on his various social media sites if they knew of any such incidents. He reported MANY. Various levels of abuse. So no it is not about just this woman, or a few "drama queens" and "attention seekers." Further, it is not just about women. Sexual harassment is a form of bullying, all kinds of harassment fall in that broader category. Now I have only been playing rpg's for two years, only online using a VTT. You don't want to speak up for women how about the 25 year old white male that I saw bullied so badly by a gaming group he became so upset he smashed his computer? Now this I HAVE documented with the screen shots of the threads where the bullying occured. When I saw him post on the other forums he was leaving the hobby all together I reached out to him, because I have training in suicide prevention and I saw some things in his words that are flags in my training. Didn't matter to me that I am a 60 year old grandmother and he was a 25 year old kid, I saw pain and I reached out. 
But I also have been bullied by some of the gamers I have played with, in and out of game. I have left groups because of bullying, I ended an 8 year friendship with the person that introduced me to RPG's and VTT's. Yes we can walk away. How about you tell the people who are in business producing RPG products that they have no right to market to anyone you don't personally approve of? Christopher mentioned women in the industry being harassed on their jobs, and complaints being ignored. For some this is a business, and what we are discussing here is bad for business, just as the anti-transgender laws and anti-gay laws are bad for business. And consider how much purchasing power these groups have, as a businessman I would do what was needed to bring them in as customers. You are telling a segement of the population their money is not as good as yours.
Now as for the hobby being something you have played since the dawn of time, still doesn't mean you OWN the hobby. You can exclude people from your personal circles, you cannot demand everyone else do the same. You can choose to ignore problems in the wider community, you do not have the right to demand others do the same. You can tell us get out of the hobby, and from what I can see that is exactly what a lot of women HAVE done, and will still do if the issue isn't discussed with genuine concern and real ideas for resolving it.
There are so many issues involved it is hard to cover it in a comment. We could talk about the low reporting of harassment in or outside the community, we could discuss that in the USA alone for every reported rape there are 9 that are never reported (stats come from women's and rape crisis centers, women cannot be forced to report when they seek therapy for the damage done). And why is the reporting rate so low across the board? Well read some of the answers on these threads, you have the answer.
I do have to scroll back and catch te one comment from the guy who said they don't want women in their games, they game to get away from women. Go tell that to the guy that had an absolute meltdown when I offered an all woman's game as if that in and of itself was a crime. I pointed out to him there ARE men that don't want women in their  games and they have no need to advertise that fact because about 95% of the games have no women by default. He called me a liar trying to create dissension in the community. But I appreciate the verification of my assertion I can go shove it in HIS face.
For all you awesome guys who see the problem and speak out, kudos to you. Women didn't get the right to vote until the majority of males voted to approved it with THEIR votes. The victims will never speak out until they have some reasonable assurance that they will be heard and not treated as the guilty party simply because they are making charges some simply wouldn't believe until they saw it in front of them, and I would bet some wouldn't see it even then.
I'll stop here. But if you want to attack my points I am not a young person given to hysteria, I have worked in far tougher fields than the gaming community, I am perfectly capable of standing my ground point for point and I have data and evidence to back me up. What I hate is having to stand my ground in something that was sold to me as a FUN LEISURE activity. I am nearly at the point of walking away myself, despite the money I have already invested and cannot recover.


----------



## DM Howard

As I said in the other thread on this topic: my wife has experienced brutal (basically torture) rape and I have become very hyper sensitive to things like harassment and sexist jokes.  I am doing my part by not participating, not engendering an environment at my table that allows that to form, and doing my utmost to stop any type of behavior like that when I see it in public.  I am not the strongest man in the room, I have mild asthma, but I will get beat up if I have to in order to save someone.


----------



## GMSkarka

Yet again we have a handful of gamers coming in to whine about their hurt feelings over the "White Male Terrorism" label, purely because they happen to share some traits with the ones who are committing these acts.   "That's hate speech!   That's inflammatory!   That's sexist, racist and wrong," they wail.

Gosh... it must be frustrating to feel like you're being demonized simply because a minority of bad apples are from the same demographic that you are.   

Congratulations.  Now you know how about a billion Muslims worldwide feel.



Pro-Tip, DudeBros -- literally EVERY female pro colleague that I have in this industry has a bunch of stories of harassment and worse, occurring at Cons.   EVERY.   SINGLE.   ONE.    Am I supposed to believe, according to your argument, that they must ALL be engaged in some gigantic conspiracy of lies?

Howsabout you grow the hell up, instead?


----------



## dave2008

Taneras said:


> It seems you're just arguing semantics.  Surely you understand the difference between 1 person in 10 years claiming harassment and hundreds claiming harassment each year.  If you want to call the former a "big problem" then what do we call the latter?  A "huge ultra mega gigantic problem"?
> 
> You might not agree, but most people operate under the idea that there are varying degrees to how big/serious a problem can be.




I agree, there are varying degrees.  In addition, I would say sexual harassment is one of the largest and most serious issues facing our world.  So even if there is less sexual harassment in the gaming community than the population as a whole I am guessing it is a big problem.  My comment was about your apparent attitude that if the gaming culture reflects the culture as whole with regard to harassment then that is as it should be.  I don't know if that is truly your attitude, but that is how it came off to me.






Taneras said:


> Possibly, it would all depend on what behavioral rules each table top group/hobby shop/community event has in place.  This isn't a false dichotomy, the only choices aren't kick the alleged bully out of the group/shop/convention or ignore the person claiming that harassment took place.  Separating the parties and encouraging people to find DM's/groups that they enjoy playing with, mentioning to everyone that harassment won't be tolerated, keeping a closer eye on someone who's had a harassment claim against them, and encouraging the people within the group/shop/event to report harassment they've experienced or seen (if you have 3 people who all claim to have seen the same thing then I think its much easier to take action as opposed to just a 1 on 1 where both people are claiming the opposite).




Agreed, and I am not advocating a B-W solution.  I am advocating working toward a better solution. That is why I said "...remain(ing) the same means victims get caught in the net."  I am making a stance against the status quo, with the implied intent to make things better.  To move forward on this subject how about these suggestions (regarding conventions and organized play):

Clearly stated policy against harassment (online and in print posted at the venue, tickets, etc.), stating possibilty of prosecution/legal action against perpetrators

if there is an issue, you could follow the following guidelines (these are very much WIP):

1) Clear evidence that someone was harassed:  Harasser is ejected from the event, banned from future events, and turned over to prosecuting authorities.

2) Clear evidence that someone has lied about harrassment:  The liar is ejected from the event, and banned from future events.

3) No evidence:  Both parties are ejected from the event.  The supposed harrasser is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises.  The supposed victim is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises to a safe location.

What do you think?



Taneras said:


> It would seem that there are some deeply differing ideological differences here, as this sort of talk scares me frankly.  It might seem like a good idea at first, until you're the one being thrown out on a baseless claim.  There's a reason why our legal system isn't built like that, because the ones that were in the past were quite horrible and open to abuse.  Sure this isn't a court of law and we aren't sentencing people to jail time, but if that's the better stance for our legal system to take why shouldn't we run our groups/shops/communities in the same manner?




Well, I admit a forum post is the not best method for conveying ones ideas and that statement came off a little wrong as I am a strong advocate for the innocent.  My point was we should protect victims at least as much, and possibly more, as we protect the innocent.  Remember, victims are innocent + being abused.


----------



## dave2008

Fildrigar said:


> I realize that the question is not directed at me, but being a convention organizer, I'll answer it for you.
> 
> 1 ) Have a robust Anti-Harassment Policy. ( Not some weaksauce one that just quotes Wheaton's Law. You can find many good examples via the google machine. )
> 
> 2 ) Ensure that everyone who attends your convention has the opportunity to read your policy and must acknowledge that they have seen it. ( Via click through if ticket bought online, via signing a document at registration if ticket bought day of show. )
> 
> 3 ) Train all of your staff and volunteers in said policy.
> 
> 4 ) Prominently feature your policy in various places. ( Repost it in social media, have it printed on signs at the convention. ) Anti-Harassment Policies serve several purposes. They set expectations of behavior and can reduce the number of incidents merely by existing. They also signal to people who have had bad experiences at other venues that they are welcome and can expect to be taken seriously if issues arise.
> 
> 5 ) If an incident is reported, take swift action.




Agreed, and what should be that policy for "swift action?"  Here is my proposal:

"If there is an issue, you could follow the following guidelines (these are very much WIP):

1) Clear evidence that someone was harassed: Harasser is ejected from the event, banned from future events, and turned over to prosecuting authorities.

2) Clear evidence that someone has lied about harassment: The lying accuser is ejected from the event, and banned from future events.

3) No evidence: Both parties are ejected from the event. The supposed harasser is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises. The supposed victim is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises to a safe location."


----------



## GMSkarka

dave2008 said:


> 3) No evidence:  Both parties are ejected from the event.




So the victim is punished if there are no witnesses?   Charming.

Guys -- this isn't a goddamn GAME.  There are no "rules" that are going to make this "balanced."   Life doesn't work that way.


----------



## Fergurg

GMSkarka said:


> So the victim is punished if there are no witnesses?   Charming.
> 
> Guys -- this isn't a goddamn GAME.  There are no "rules" that are going to make this "balanced."   Life doesn't work that way.




But you're OK with punishing the accused on an unsubstantiated accusation?


----------



## atomicovermind

Fergurg said:


> But you're OK with punishing the accused on an unsubstantiated accusation?




Look dude, we're talking about removing someone from a convention, not sending them to jail. Given the relative frequency of harassment compared to the frequency of people faking it, if I was running a convention, I'd make that choice in a heartbeat. If things turned out to be the other way around later, I'd apologize, refund fees, etc. But if I'm running a show, you better believe I'm erring on the side of protecting a potential victim.


----------



## GMSkarka

Fergurg said:


> But you're OK with punishing the accused on an unsubstantiated accusation?




Yes, because I know that the "false accusation" thing is far, far less likely than actual harassment, despite constantly being thrown up by rape-deniers as a constant wall of noise.  

Because a policy of what-I'm-sure-YOU-would-see-as-"Draconian" punishment _just might_ result in gamers being more aware of their actions, and the actions of others, instead of EVERY TIME this topic comes up, clowns like you coming out of the woodwork to deny that it's an issue.

As Voltaire says in CANDIDE:   "_Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres_." ('In this nation, it is good, from time to time, to kill an admiral, to encourage the others.')


----------



## AWizardInDallas

cmad1977 said:


> Haha be our guest. If you're really afraid of all that enjoy your safe space. I'll be in a store with groups of people playing games.




So will I and have been for 35 years. Non-sequitur reply taken out of context of the original Q&A and contributes absolutely nothing. Discussion with you terminated due to lack of manners.


----------



## GMSkarka

atomicovermind said:


> Look dude, we're talking about removing someone from a convention, not sending them to jail.




Exactly.   One one side, you've got the potential for somebody to miss out on spending a weekend pretending to be an elf.   On the other, letting somebody get away with harassment and/or assault.

It's not even a hard decision.   Or shouldn't be, for any functioning adult.


----------



## Fergurg

GMSkarka said:


> Yes, because I know that the "false accusation" thing is far, far less likely than actual harassment, despite constantly being thrown up by rape-deniers as a constant wall of noise.
> 
> Because a policy of what-I'm-sure-YOU-would-see-as-"Draconian" punishment _just might_ result in gamers being more aware of their actions, and the actions of others, instead of EVERY TIME this topic comes up, clowns like you coming out of the woodwork to deny that it's an issue.
> 
> As Voltaire says in CANDIDE:   "_Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres_." ('In this nation, it is good, from time to time, to kill an admiral, to encourage the others.')




3 things:

1) So you do believe that the accusation is the evidence?

2) It's the "clowns" like me, who have been falsely accused of something with no recourse, that want to make sure that "The accusation is the evidence" is not the standard that exists anywhere else.

3) As the director of a company, you derogatorily insulted a customer - me. You lost a customer over this, and I will do whatever I can to make sure that you will lose more.


----------



## Fergurg

GMSkarka said:


> Exactly.   One one side, you've got the potential for somebody to miss out on spending a weekend pretending to be an elf.   On the other, letting somebody get away with harassment and/or assault.




By "No proof means no action", you have the potential to not punish an unjust act; however, "The accusation is the evidence" being the standard, you are choosing the potential of being the one committing an unjust act.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Neonchameleon said:


> From this I can gather that you are either extremely lucky, living in a bubble, or most likely oblivious.




Arrogant presumption. Your don't know me.  I have been involved with this hobby for over 35 years, have attended many conventions, run games for a multitude of groups, including at conventions, and even have industry credits to my name.  I am familiar with a while range of gamers, male, female, old, young, whatever. Neither of our experiences are relevant to the key points:

1. Unfounded accusations are not fact.  Let me say it yet again, accusation should never be accepted as evidence of wrong doing.  This article labels "white male" gamers as "terrorists" without any substantiation whatsoever.  No volume of data has been collected or presented to support the proposition.

2. I whole heartedly agree that no one should be subjected to harassment.  Anywhere, anytime, ever.

The only thing that has changed is the complete wussification of America to such a degree that the knee jerk reaction to accusation is to accept it at face value without proper validation.  We might as well be discussing Bigfoot (which would be far more entertaining).

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Arthur Conan Doyle


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> I get that people don't like being called a terrorist, I was not happy about that piece when it started circulating in my social media




Honestly so long as its directed at specific individuals I couldn't care less if people called them terrorists as in some sense they would be.  But, I do have a problem with directing this at an entire race and an entire gender, which is what that blogger did.  Moreover, one must question how valid those reports were.  With that sort of title, I think its easily argued that the author of that blog is pushing a specific narrative, and I don't think I'd trust them to balance their own biases in this instance and present a fair case.



			
				Christopher Helton said:
			
		

> I realized that being inflammatory didn't make the article wrong.




I agree 100%, but again I think it could easily be argued that the information on that blog was questionable seeing as the author of that blog seemed to want to push a very specific narrative.



			
				Christopher Helton said:
			
		

> If people are getting upset over being compared to terrorists, then perhaps instead of lashing out they should take a look at the behavior that is getting themselves called terrible things.




I'm assuming the people you're speaking about are white males.  If that's the reasoning you're operating under, the same could apply to Muslims and Islamic Extremists.  Just because you belong to a specific religion its your responsibility to "take a look at the behavior that's getting themselves called terrible things".  Or pointing to black crime statistics and finding a black on the street and telling them that if they wanted to stop being called thugs and criminals they need to take a look and start speaking up/acting out.

I think we both know that wouldn't be appropriate in the aforementioned examples but for some reason you think that just because someone has a certain type of genital and has a certain skin pigmentation color that they should share some of the responsibility of others like them.

Honestly, again, this just sounds like more progressive nonsense.



GMSkarka said:


> Yet again we have a handful of gamers coming in to whine about their hurt feelings over the "White Male Terrorism" label, purely because they happen to share some traits with the ones who are committing these acts.   "That's hate speech!   That's inflammatory!   That's sexist, racist and wrong," they wail.




And according to progressive standards their right.  Imagine "DudeBros" coming out and making articles about how women, or blacks, or gays, are ruining the table top/gaming/music/movie/whatever experience and all the while clammering that if you disagree with them you're invalidating their experiences and that the only proper response is to sit back, listen, and ask how they could help.

I'm sorry people are expecting you to be consistent with your worldviews.



GMSkarka said:


> Gosh... it must be frustrating to feel like you're being demonized simply because a minority of bad apples are from the same demographic that you are.  Congratulations.  Now you know how about a billion Muslims worldwide feel.




There's no vengeance in justice or fairness.  You sound very bitter and want to inflict the same sort of harm you've experienced on others as a way to balance things out.  You're literally becoming the monster you want to fight.



GMSkarka said:


> Pro-Tip, DudeBros -- literally EVERY female pro colleague that I have in this industry has a bunch of stories of harassment and worse, occurring at Cons.   EVERY.   SINGLE.   ONE.    Am I supposed to believe, according to your argument, that they must ALL be engaged in some gigantic conspiracy of lies?
> 
> Howsabout you grow the hell up, instead?




It seems you and your friends have an extreme string of bad luck, as someone has already posted a survey of 3,600+ individuals who attend events like these and I believe only 8% answered that they've personally experienced harassment (sexual, racial, or otherwise).  The majority of these respondents were female.  So considering most of the attendees of these events are male, and operating under the assumption that women are targeted more than men with regards to harassment then that 8% is over inflated as that's the figure when mostly women answer the survey.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

atomicovermind said:


> Look dude, we're talking about removing someone from a convention, not sending them to jail. Given the relative frequency of harassment compared to the frequency of people faking it, if I was running a convention, I'd make that choice in a heartbeat. If things turned out to be the other way around later, I'd apologize, refund fees, etc. But if I'm running a show, you better believe I'm erring on the side of protecting a potential victim.




I'm totally okay with local security kicking  people from a convention when they SEE harassment.  That is totally reasonable in any venue.  I'd actually forgotten this because it's been so rare, but I've actually asked a player or two to leave the table.  I've had players throw things, badger, attempt intimidation (um, the real kind without dice), and even once offer up a punch to the face.  I had one player accuse another of unfair treasure distribution which lead to a discussion on ethics and morality that I had to terminate.  That player is no longer with us and the game is better for it.


----------



## atomicovermind

Fergurg said:


> By "No proof means no action", you have the potential to not punish an unjust act; however, "The accusation is the evidence" being the standard, you are choosing the potential of being the one committing an unjust act.




I've written and deleted about 6 replies to this, because wrapping my head around your attitude is confusing the f*ck out of me. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. Any "punishment" leveled has the most transitory and minimal consequences. Given the choice between committing the potential "injustice" of not letting someone stay at my cool nerd party because they have been falsely accused (a manifestly VERY RARE occurrence) and the hazard of letting a harassing  (a much more likely occurrence) stay at my cool nerd party, there is NO QUESTION what I'd do. If I am wrong in the first case, I'll have some heavy apologizing to do later, and that's fine. If I turn out to be wrong, I have no problem mea-culpaing. If I am wrong in the second, I am negating someones else's good time, and potentially allowing an element to remain at my cool nerd party that could harass even more people. 

This is not a hard choice.


----------



## Neonchameleon

AWizardInDallas said:


> Arrogant presumption. Your don't know me.




Not arrogant presumption - an attempt at reading you charitably. Harassment happens. Far too much of it, and especially when decent men aren't present. There were three possibilities.

1: You live in a bubble.
2: You have no social awareness or play three brass monkeys
3: You are a harasser attempting to provide a distraction.

I decided to treat you charitably. You call this arrogant presumption.



> 1. Unfounded accusations are not fact.  Let me say it yet again, accusation should never be accepted as evidence of wrong doing.




And apparently you are unaware of the meaning of the word evidence. It shouldn't be accepted as _proof_. Hearsay certainly shouldn't and eyewitnesses are never completely reliable. But if eyewitnesses aren't _evidence_ then you've redefined the word.



> This article labels "white male" gamers as "terrorists" without any substantiation whatsoever.  No volume of data has been collected or presented to support the proposition.




Apparently you didn't read the OP - which wasn't the original article. And did collect data.



> The only thing that has changed is the complete wussification of America to such a degree that the knee jerk reaction to accusation is to accept it at face value without proper validation.




Your reading comprehension again fails. The OP of this thread _did_ set out to validate whether it was just this person's experiences. And found that no it wasn't. As for wussification, the biggest wusses around would appear to be those who are throwing distractions to avoid dealing with the real issues raised by the terrorism article and validated by the start of this thread.



> "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Arthur Conan Doyle




Which, if you'd read this thread was why [MENTION=6804772]Christopher Helton[/MENTION] started talking to people. And why I've talked to people. There's plenty of data. Christopher collected a lot. I've provided some. Plenty of others have also done the same. You just want to ignore the data that exists.


----------



## Grimstaff

Aw man, I totally almost missed "Virtue Signalling, the Thread"! Am I too late???


----------



## dave2008

GMSkarka said:


> So the victim is punished if there are no witnesses?   Charming.
> 
> Guys -- this isn't a goddamn GAME.  There are no "rules" that are going to make this "balanced."   Life doesn't work that way.




Exactly, that is why I said these are WIP.  I am hoping to get suggestions for improvement.  

It is helpful to have clear guidelines about what will happen.  It is more of a deterrent.  If you know you might be kicked out, banned, and prosecuted then hopefully you control yourself.

Also, yes the victim will be punished (whether that is the supposed harasser or the supposed harassed) if there is no evidence.  If this is clear up front to everyone the hope is that it helps prevent these scenarios.  However, the more I think about it, it could lead to lack of reporting problem.  Any suggestions for improvements.

And to be clear, both my wife and I have been the victims of sexual harassment and abuse.  Her a lot more than I (I'm a white male, so I've got some degree of societal protection).  So I am very sensitive to this issue.  I am just trying to participate in  dialog that could lead to something more substantive than arguing.  Just saying, "Grow Up" is not going to get us anywhere.


----------



## Grimstaff

Aw man, I totally almost missed "Virtue Signalling, the Thread"! Am I too late?


----------



## dave2008

Grimstaff said:


> Aw man, I almost missed "Virtue Signalling, the Thread"! Am I too late?
> 
> Um, let's see, harassment is totally a straight white male problem, and no other races, genders, or orientations commit harassment!
> 
> Am I doin it right?




Why would you come to that conclusion?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Neonchameleon said:


> Not arrogant presumption - an attempt at reading you charitably. Harassment happens. Far too much of it, and especially when decent men aren't present. There were three possibilities.
> 
> 1: You live in a bubble.
> 2: You have no social awareness or play three brass monkeys
> 3: You are a harasser attempting to provide a distraction.
> 
> I decided to treat you charitably. You call this arrogant presumption.




I don't accept the limitation to three scenarios.  That's your handicap not mine.  You're not being charitable in the slightest.  Termination of discussion with you due to lack of manners.


----------



## dave2008

atomicovermind said:


> Look dude, we're talking about removing someone from a convention, not sending them to jail. Given the relative frequency of harassment compared to the frequency of people faking it, if I was running a convention, I'd make that choice in a heartbeat. If things turned out to be the other way around later, I'd apologize, refund fees, etc. But if I'm running a show, you better believe I'm erring on the side of protecting a potential victim.




Good point, any recommendation to improve the guideline then?


----------



## Taneras

dave2008 said:


> I agree, there are varying degrees.  In addition, I would say sexual harassment is one of the largest and most serious issues facing our world.  So even if there is less sexual harassment in the gaming community than the population as a whole I am guessing it is a big problem.




Granting that sexual harassment is a very serious issue, and going off the idea that even one incident is such a problem that this can be labeled a "big problem", I'm sure you'd admit that there is at least one instance of a woman harassing a man at some point in the past few decades at table top games/events/conventions, right?

In that case, you'd be agreeing that women sexually harassing men in table top gaming would also be a "big problem".  I'd disagree with that, and I have a feeling you would too.  I don't think that's the best way to approach this, which is why I tried to make the distinction between the sizes of the problems we're discussing here.



dave2008 said:


> My comment was about your apparent attitude that if the gaming culture reflects the culture as whole with regard to harassment then that is as it should be.  I don't know if that is truly your attitude, but that is how it came off to me.




I'm sorry if it came off that way, no that's not it at all.  My point would be that if table top incidents are roughly the same as incidents in the general public then table top gaming doesn't specifically have a problem.  It would be society at large that would have this problem.  But to harp back to what I've said earlier, how big of a problem?  One person is one too many, of course.  But if it's one person out of a group of thousands, despite still being a problem, I wouldn't classify it as a big problem.  Obviously its more than 1 out of a few thousand, I'm just choosing extremes to note that distinctions should be made.  Where is the line drawn?  At what number or percent does a problem get the "big" label, or even the "small" label?  Everyone is going to draw the line differently and that's probably, along with other subjective measures, where the disagreements originate from.



dave2008 said:


> What do you think?




I think its (point #3) very clever, and something I hadn't thought about before.  The only issue is we'd all have differing opinions on what constitutes "no evidence" and even what specifically is and isn't "harassment".  Of course that's a whole can of worms and I don't expect you or I to be able to solve that issue - just pointing it out.

At a distance I think its a very good set of guidelines, the only thing would be getting people to agree on the definitions of some of the words.  Still clever though.



dave2008 said:


> Well, I admit a forum post is the not best method for conveying ones ideas and that statement came off a little wrong as I am a strong advocate for the innocent.  My point was we should protect victims at least as much, and possibly more, as we protect the innocent.  Remember, victims are innocent + being abused.




It sounds good and something that I'm sure many people would love to get behind, but once you accept that someone is a victim you, at least in my opinion, as a default accept the accused is guilty and was indeed harassing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to brush aside real victims.  Only that this is a very tough issue to tackle.


----------



## GMSkarka

Fergurg said:


> 3 things:
> 
> 1) So you do believe that the accusation is the evidence?




I believe we're not talking about criminal prosecution, so the standard you're demanding is higher than required for this situation.  



Fergurg said:


> 2) It's the "clowns" like me, who have been falsely accused of something with no recourse, that want to make sure that "The accusation is the evidence" is not the standard that exists anywhere else.




I have no knowledge of the situation you're citing, so I can't comment on that.  I would think that as somebody who has been in a situation where they have not been believed, you'd fall on the side of sympathy towards somebody who also isn't being believed.  Again -- every one of my female pro colleagues has a story of harassment or worse.  Speaking purely statistically (and ignoring for a moment being just a thinking, feeling human being who believes my friends), they can't ALL be lying.  



Fergurg said:


> 3) As the director of a company, you derogatorily insulted a customer - me. You lost a customer over this, and I will do whatever I can to make sure that you will lose more.




OK, sure -- that's certainly your choice.  Tell your friends.   Hell, tell _both_ of them.   

Your behavior in this thread makes me confident that you're not the sort of customer that I want.


----------



## Neonchameleon

AWizardInDallas said:


> I don't accept the limitation to three scenarios.  That's your handicap not mine.  You're not being charitable in the slightest.  Termination of discussion with you due to lack of manners.




Which seems to be a good way of keeping yourself in a see-no-evil hear-no-evil bubble.


----------



## atomicovermind

My most immediate criticism of it is that you are explicitly discouraging reporting of harassment if it was done in private, no one saw it, etc.  If a victim of a harassing incident can't provide whatever you are considering as "hard evidence", you're basically asking them to penalize themselves JUST for reporting what happened. What the hell kind of message does that send?


----------



## cmad1977

Neonchameleon said:


> Which seems to be a good way of keeping yourself in a see-no-evil hear-no-evil bubble.




'If I haven't seen it in my 35 years then it's not happening and I refuse to accept even the suggestion that it may.' Is the argument I find hilarious and wildly illogical.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> It seems you and your friends have an extreme string of bad luck, as someone has already posted a survey of 3,600+ individuals who attend events like these and I believe only 8% answered that they've personally experienced harassment (sexual, racial, or otherwise).  The majority of these respondents were female.  So considering most of the attendees of these events are male, and operating under the assumption that women are targeted more than men with regards to harassment then that 8% is over inflated as that's the figure when mostly women answer the survey.




I suspect it's because we're industry pros, and as such attend more such events than your average respondent, and have been doing so annually as part of our jobs for longer than many of your respondents have been in the hobby.   That's going to skew the results, obviously.

That's aside from the fact that your survey is self-selecting, coupled with the fact that most women don't come forward with their stories (and given the reactions of some in this very discussion, which you can plainly see, that's certainly not hard to understand).


----------



## Obryn

Grimstaff said:


> Aw man, I totally almost missed "Virtue Signalling, the Thread"! Am I too late???




Wow, and I almost missed the obligatory, It's-important-to-other-people-but-not-me-so-it's-all-BS post!


----------



## dave2008

GMSkarka said:


> Yes, because I know that the "false accusation" thing is far, far less likely than actual harassment, despite constantly being thrown up by rape-deniers as a constant wall of noise.
> 
> Because a policy of what-I'm-sure-YOU-would-see-as-"Draconian" punishment _just might_ result in gamers being more aware of their actions, and the actions of others, instead of EVERY TIME this topic comes up, clowns like you coming out of the woodwork to deny that it's an issue.
> 
> As Voltaire says in CANDIDE:   "_Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres_." ('In this nation, it is good, from time to time, to kill an admiral, to encourage the others.')




Agreed.  I don't really believe false accusations are an issue.

Any suggestion to improve the guide?  It helps everyone if there is a clear understanding to what will happen if a policy is violated.  I think that is the best way we can work against harassment.  Clear policy and clear adjudication.  Do you disagree?  If so, what do you suggest.

Remember, this is meant as a deterrent more than anything.  Ideally these guides would coincide with more safety/security patrols and camera servailence, so there is less likelihood of a lack of evidence.

Please understand I am coming at this from the prospective of a parent. I've been in many situations where my children accuse each other of lying. Currently, I would rather punish them both than the guilty get off completely free.  That was where I was coming from.  Kick them both out, but, as I mentioned, make sure the potential victim is escorted to safe place.  I agree it might not be the best solution, can you suggest a better method.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

dave2008 said:


> Why would you come to that conclusion?






cmad1977 said:


> 'If I haven't seen it in my 35 years then it's not happening and I refuse to accept even the suggestion that it may.' Is the argument I find hilarious and wildly illogical.




That is your misquote of what I actually said which you placed in quotes as my having said that which is flat dumb.  Creating your own fictional quote makes you a special kind of illogical.


----------



## dave2008

atomicovermind said:


> My most immediate criticism of it is that you are explicitly discouraging reporting of harassment if it was done in private, no one saw it, etc.  If a victim of a harassing incident can't provide whatever you are considering as "hard evidence", you're basically asking them to penalize themselves JUST for reporting what happened. What the hell kind of message does that send?




Agreed. I see that flaw now.  Any suggestions on improvement.  It is a tough one.


----------



## cmad1977

AWizardInDallas said:


> That is your misquote of what I actually said which you placed in quotes as my having said that which is flat dumb.  Creating your own fictional quote makes you a special kind of illogical.




Wasn't quoting you, but clearly the shoe fits.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Neonchameleon said:


> Which seems to be a good way of keeping yourself in a see-no-evil hear-no-evil bubble.




No, I just don't feed trolls.


----------



## dave2008

AWizardInDallas said:


> That is your misquote of what I actually said which you placed in quotes as my having said that which is flat dumb.  Creating your own fictional quote makes you a special kind of illogical.




Not sure why I am quoted in this one, your reply doesn't seem to be to me at all.  Can you clarify?


----------



## atomicovermind

dave2008 said:


> Agreed. I see that flaw now.  Any suggestions on improvement.  It is a tough one.




Yeah, it is. But you get props (from me, at least) for trying to address it.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

dave2008 said:


> Not sure why I am quoted in this one, your reply doesn't seem to be to me at all.  Can you clarify?




Unintended consequence of clicking on the multiquote button. Sorry for the error, Dave.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

cmad1977 said:


> Wasn't quoting you, but clearly the shoe fits.




You literally put it in quotes.  That's what quotes means.  Lol.


----------



## GMSkarka

dave2008 said:


> I agree it might not be the best solution, can you suggest a better method.




Clear policy.   Zero tolerance.   If you are accused of harassment or assault, you are asked to leave, and your ticket price is refunded.   The instances of false accusation are so small in these situations, it's literally not worth making a policy allowance for that in the name of "balance."   Again, we're not talking about prosecution here, but attendance to a privately-owned event.  The owner can boot anybody they like -- and with a ticket refund, there's even less grounds for claims of "injustice."

Again -- this is for situations where legal authorities are not called in.   Obviously, in those cases, the police handle the matter.


----------



## cmad1977

It wasn't  a quote you made right? So... 
Anyways I thought we weren't talking because I was rude? I guess I could have been more politically correct in order to make sure not to offend people who might be sensitive about this topic. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dave2008

Taneras said:


> Granting that sexual harassment is a very serious issue, and going off the idea that even one incident is such a problem that this can be labeled a "big problem", I'm sure you'd admit that there is at least one instance of a woman harassing a man at some point in the past few decades at table top games/events/conventions, right?
> 
> In that case, you'd be agreeing that women sexually harassing men in table top gaming would also be a "big problem".  I'd disagree with that, and I have a feeling you would too.  I don't think that's the best way to approach this, which is why I tried to make the distinction between the sizes of the problems we're discussing here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if it came off that way, no that's not it at all.  My point would be that if table top incidents are roughly the same as incidents in the general public then table top gaming doesn't specifically have a problem.  It would be society at large that would have this problem.  But to harp back to what I've said earlier, how big of a problem?  One person is one too many, of course.  But if it's one person out of a group of thousands, despite still being a problem, I wouldn't classify it as a big problem.  Obviously its more than 1 out of a few thousand, I'm just choosing extremes to note that distinctions should be made.  Where is the line drawn?  At what number or percent does a problem get the "big" label, or even the "small" label?  Everyone is going to draw the line differently and that's probably, along with other subjective measures, where the disagreements originate from.
> 
> 
> 
> I think its (point #3) very clever, and something I hadn't thought about before.  The only issue is we'd all have differing opinions on what constitutes "no evidence" and even what specifically is and isn't "harassment".  Of course that's a whole can of worms and I don't expect you or I to be able to solve that issue - just pointing it out.
> 
> At a distance I think its a very good set of guidelines, the only thing would be getting people to agree on the definitions of some of the words.  Still clever though.
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds good and something that I'm sure many people would love to get behind, but once you accept that someone is a victim you, at least in my opinion, as a default accept the accused is guilty and was indeed harassing.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to brush aside real victims.  Only that this is a very tough issue to tackle.




I think we are basically in line.  I think I believe it is more of a problem than you (but I'm not sure).  I believe if gaming culture reflects the wider culture in terms of harassment, then we need to work to lessen it.  Everything I have heard so far suggest that, at least, is the case.

It is definitely a tough issue you to tackle, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> I suspect it's because we're industry pros, and as such attend more such events than your average respondent.




I do agree that length of time spent at these conventions would skew the results, as if surveying someone who's only been to one event for a few hours counts as much as someone who's been doing it for 20 years.  But I don't understand why you're claiming that the industry pros involved in this spend more time surrounded in it than many of the respondents.  Perhaps most who were polled have been in long enough to accurately represent trends in our community, or perhaps most haven't been in long enough.  You bring up a good point, but then make assumptions that benefit what you already believe when that might not be the actual case.



GMSkarka said:


> That's aside from the fact that your survey is self-selecting




It's not my survey, and I don't quite get the complaint of "self selecting", what do you mean?  It was 3,600+ respondents with the majority being women.



GMSkarka said:


> coupled with the fact that most women don't come forward with their stories (and given the reactions of some in this very discussion, which you can plainly see, that's certainly not hard to understand).




I understand that often times these issues are hard to report, especially if you have reason to distrust event organizers, or store owners, or DM's, or whatever.  But they've come forward with their stories to you, so clearly there are avenues where they'll come out with what they've experienced.  If surveys aren't on that avenue of places where they'll come forward to answer simple yes or no questions I'm not sure what to say.  If surveys don't count then I can't imagine any other way to quantify just how big this issue is.


----------



## dave2008

AWizardInDallas said:


> Unintended consequence of clicking on the multiquote button. Sorry for the error, Dave.




No worries, I guess that might have been the case.


----------



## GMSkarka

Here's what I wonder:  Why such vehemence about the "injustice" of such policies?

If you're not harassing people, *it doesn't apply to you.*

If you're not assaulting people, *it doesn't apply to you.*

If it doesn't apply to you, why do you care so much?  What effect does it have upon you at all?


If you say "but I could be falsely accused" --- perhaps you should ask yourself why that might be.   And then maybe avoid any circumstance where that might be a possibility.   It's not difficult.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> I don't quite get the complaint of "self selecting", what do you mean?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias 

The survey wasn't blind, it was the results of the people who chose to respond to it.  In other words, they selected themselves to be part of the statistical group.


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> If it doesn't apply to you, why do you care so much? What effect does it have upon you at all?




If I'm wrongly accused of harassment its going to matter to me.  People are pushing for anti harassment policies, policies that affect everyone.  I'm concerned with what is defined as harassment, and how much evidence is needed for action to be taken.

I'd usually just trust common sense but many universities across America are including petty comments as "harassment".  For instance, if I call something crazy, like "wow, that monster fight was insane/crazy/nuts" I'm guilty of a "micro-aggression" and could be punished in some fashion.  Maybe I make a "kitchen joke" to my wife and someone over hears it.  That's my concern.

These extreme guidelines and policies often come from people who push for trigger warnings and safe spaces, and often demonize specific genders and races.  That's what got me to respond in the first place.  Maybe Christopher Helton didn't mean it that way, but it just looked like so much material I've already seen before.



GMSkarka said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias
> 
> The survey wasn't blind, it was the results of the people who chose to respond to it.  In other words, they selected themselves to be part of the statistical group.




Yes, as far as I'm aware that's the only way you can do a survey.  Are there any surveys that don't allow someone the option to participate?

It's only "selective" if you purposefully try and make it nonrandom.  The author of the survey encouraged *EVERYONE* to participate.  Had they done their best to leave out responses from a certain gender, race, etc then it'd be self selective.  Had they done their best to minimize the inclusion of specific answers, then it'd be self selecting.

But just including people who wanted to participate isn't self selecting.  I'd hate to see a surveyer break into my house and force me to take a survey just so that they could avoid the accusation of "self selecting".


----------



## Dannager

I have to say, I'm incredibly encouraged by the enthusiasm with which this issue is being tackled, here. The most active in our community seem to also be the most supportive of improving gaming culture, and that means progress will be made. There is a handful of people here making a very concerted effort to maintain the status quo, but I'm not convinced they have any real power to shape the community as a whole. The more they talk, the more it becomes apparent that this is a personal anti-crusade for them that they take great pains to wage at every opportunity (see: abandoning game systems for fear of tacitly embracing "political correctness").


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> These extreme guidelines and policies often come from people who push for trigger warnings and safe spaces, and often demonize specific genders and races.  That's what got me to respond in the first place.  Maybe Christopher Helton didn't mean it that way, but it just looked like so much material I've already seen before.




The only thing being demonized is people being harassed.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Yes, as far as I'm aware that's the only way you can do a survey.  Are there any surveys that don't allow someone the option to participate?




Strong surveys operate on random sampling. Random sampling surveys are much more resistant to self-selection bias than polls that are simply made available to the entire population in question.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> Yes, as far as I'm aware that's the only way you can do a survey.  Are there any surveys that don't allow someone the option to participate?
> 
> It's only "selective" if you purposefully try and make it nonrandom.  The author of the survey encouraged *EVERYONE* to participate.  Had they done their best to leave out responses from a certain gender, race, etc then it'd be self selective.  Had they done their best to minimize the inclusion of specific answers, then it'd be self selecting.
> 
> But just including people who wanted to participate isn't self selecting.  I'd hate to see a surveyer break into my house and force me to take a survey just so that they could avoid the accusation of "self selecting".




I provided you with the definition.  Survey statistics is a field, with specific definitions.  Your understanding of the topic is incorrect.  

But we're drifting way off the point here, so I'll drop it.


----------



## AngryTiger

GMSkarka said:


> Here's what I wonder:  Why such vehemence about the "injustice" of such policies?
> 
> If you're not harassing people, *it doesn't apply to you.*
> 
> If you're not assaulting people, *it doesn't apply to you.*
> 
> If it doesn't apply to you, why do you care so much?  What effect does it have upon you at all?
> 
> 
> If you say "but I could be falsely accused" --- perhaps you should ask yourself why that might be.   And then maybe avoid any circumstance where that might be a possibility.   It's not difficult.




Literally the only thing you need to do to people accuse you of harassment is to disagree with a person who happens to be member of a minority group. And people will always assume quilt on the accused, because they are the privileged one with power over the other person. Except they are not, the accuser has all the power, the power to get you punished for something you didn't do.


----------



## GMSkarka

AngryTiger said:


> Literally the only thing you need to do to people accuse you of harassment is to disagree with a person who happens to be member of a minority group. And people will always assume quilt on the accused, because they are the privileged one with power over the other person. Except they are not, the accuser has all the power, the power to get you punished for something you didn't do.




Wow.



I was going to respond to this, but I think I'll just leave it unremarked.  It stands clearly on its own, and says far more than any comment I might make regarding it.   Take a good look.


----------



## Dannager

AngryTiger said:


> Literally the only thing you need to do to people accuse you of harassment is to disagree with a person who happens to be member of a minority group. And people will always assume quilt on the accused, because they are the privileged one with power over the other person. Except they are not, the accuser has all the power, the power to get you punished for something you didn't do.




In this case, the "punishment" is having to go home. How horrid. So, yes. On *very* rare occasion someone might have to leave an event before they were planning on leaving because of an unjust accusation. Life goes on. As a white male who attends the occasional convention, that's an incredibly small price to pay for the chance at improving the overall level of civility.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> The only thing being demonized is people being harassed.




You just insinuated a few posts ago that just because someone shared the same genitals (being male) or skin pigmentation (white) as some of the people involved in this harassment that they should be less concerned with being lumped in with a bad label and instead should be also trying to solve that problem.

Again I'll ask, if that was being said to a Muslim about Terrorism or a black person about inner city crime would that be an acceptable thing to say?  Demonizing may have been too harsh, I admit.  But pretending that guilt can be shared through racial or gendered lines certainly ins't a positive approach by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> You just insinuated a few posts ago that just because someone shared the same genitals (being male) or skin pigmentation (white) as some of the people involved in this harassment that they should be less concerned with being lumped in with a bad label and instead should be also trying to solve that problem.
> 
> Again I'll ask, if that was being said to a Muslim about Terrorism or a black person about inner city crime would that be an acceptable thing to say?  Demonizing may have been too harsh, I admit.  But pretending that guilt can be shared through racial or gendered lines certainly ins't a positive approach by any stretch of the imagination.




"When did you stop beating your wife?"


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Strong surveys operate on random sampling. Random sampling surveys are much more resistant to self-selection bias than polls that are simply made available to the entire population in question.




This isn't my field of expertise, obviously, so here opening it up to the public might unintentionally show a bias from those wanting to answer it rather than a representation of everyone?

So it could actually be inflated as perhaps it encouraged people with complaints to answer.  Or it could be deflated in that it could have encouraged people to speak up and show that there's nothing wrong with their hobby.  Or it could very well be accurate in that there was actually very little bias in choosing to take the tests or maybe the biases roughly equaled out?

I can understand that.  But I'd argue in the absence of a more rigorous poll this would seem to be at least a decent indicator, much better than simple anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Christopher Helton

People with complaints to tell isn't "inflated," it is the baseline.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> "When did you stop beating your wife?"




I'd really appreciate it if instead of trying to be clever you'd actually participate in this conversation and work towards improving our community.

You said:

"If people are getting upset over being compared to terrorists, then perhaps instead of lashing out they should take a look at the behavior that is getting themselves called terrible things."

To me, this essentially says that white males need to focus on the reason they're being labeled terrible things rather than being offended by being labeled terrible things.

Is that an accurate summary of what you've said?  Because if it is, how is it any different from demanding that Muslims not be upset that their being called terrorists, suggesting that instead they need to look at the behavior that's causing them to be labeled terrorists? Or, replacing black person and inner city crime with the same intent present in the previous sentence.

I'm not asking you a loaded question, I'm honestly asking you a question about what you intended to say.  Did you misspeak?  Did I misunderstand you?  What did you mean to say?


----------



## Dire Bare

Fergurg said:
			
		

> There is another side to this story, and here it is. It puts a whole new light on these claims that are made.
> http://imgur.com/X1amFDz
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hy-Harassment-Has-To-Stop/page4#ixzz45LzLrUdB






I'm A Banana said:


> It's good to get another side, but this isn't about just one issue (read the OP), so regardless of What Actually Happened This One Time, the overall point of _Harassment is Happening and it is Bad and More Can Be Done to Stop It_ should remain uncontroversial, no?




Hard to "respond" to Fergurg as I've got this dude on my blocked list already, and I'm only seeing his posts in the responses of others. But, worth it in this case.

After reading the linked response from Nathan Caroland of Wyrd Games, the makers of Malifaux, I will never spend any of my money on any of their products, and will encourage my friends to do the same. A response I would have respected is, "We here at Wyrd have been made aware of some pretty sexist attacks aimed at female gamers from some of our fans and possibly some of our employees. We plan on reviewing our company and fan policies so that we can reduce, and hopefully eliminate, this type of unwarranted behavior." That kind of response would have sent me out into the stores to pick up some Malifaux right away. But the response we got? Screw that company.

Thanks Fergurg, you've saved me some money. Currently, I play Warhammer 40K and Star Wars X-Wing, and I'm always looking at other tabletop miniatures games that I might want to invest in. Malifaux seems popular, and many of the figures are pretty cool looking. I was debating picking some of them up. No longer.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> In this case, the "punishment" is having to go home. How horrid. So, yes. On *very* rare occasion someone might have to leave an event before they were planning on leaving because of an unjust accusation. Life goes on. As a white male who attends the occasional convention, that's an incredibly small price to pay for the chance at improving the overall level of civility.




Ignoring the specific accusation made by AngryTiger about minorities and instantly being believed, I do think your post is simply minimizing the experiences of a victim (the person who was forced to leave because of a false accusation).  Why are you ignoring this victim but focusing on others?  Moreover, you're assuming that its just having to go home.  It very well could be a ban from a store or event.

I'm also skeptical about the chances of such policies improving the overall level of civility.  I can imagine people being upset that their friends are unjustly being removed, creating ill feelings to the person who alleged the harassment.  It could incentize abusive behavior by giving people a way of removing people they don't like simply because of a harassment complaint.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> I'd really appreciate it if instead of trying to be clever you'd actually participate in this conversation and work towards improving our community.




Yes, I'm the one not participating.

One of the first things that they teach us when you study journalism is that there is such a thing as an "unanswerable question," which is something that is phrased in such a way that no matter what the answer is...your answer is wrong. It is usually referred to by "When did you stop beating your wife?" In rhetoric, it is also known as a logical fallacy.

If you want a legitimate answer, ask a legitimate question.

And that bit that I quoted from you? More of the same.  I wrote this article. I spoke with women who had utterly horrifying experiences to relate. I posted it, with the permission of the site owner, to this site (which by the way is one of my jobs), under my name in order to facilitate a conversation that needs to happen. You're an internet rando who has done nothing but attempt to derail and sidetrack this conversation, but my not answering your questions which doesn't deserve an answer is derailing the conversation. If you legitimately want to "participate in this conversation," then drop your mask and engage with the conversation honestly and wholeheartedly.

Until then "When did you stop beating your wife?" will be the answer that you get to this pointless question.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> Yes, I'm the one not participating.




You just accused me of asking a loaded question.  I didn't ask when did you start hating white men, I asked you to explain your comment.



Christopher Helton said:


> One of the first things that they teach us when you study journalism is that there is such a thing as an "unanswerable question," which is something that is phrased in such a way that no matter what the answer is...your answer is wrong.




You don't know what I'm thinking so please stop pretending.  It's not like you've spend hours trying to explain it and I'm just being unreasonable.  You haven't even attempted to explain it.



Christopher Helton said:


> I wrote this article. I spoke with women who had utterly horrifying experiences to relate. I posted it, with the permission of the site owner, to this site (which by the way is one of my jobs), under my name in order to facilitate a conversation that needs to happen. You're an internet rando who has done nothing but attempt to derail and sidetrack this conversation, but my not answering your questions which doesn't deserve an answer is derailing the conversation. If you legitimately want to "participate in this conversation," then drop your mask and engage with the conversation honestly and wholeheartedly.




My name is Christopher Hollier, so now I'm not an internet rando.  Do you think if you're going to expect an honest conversation that you should assume the person you're speaking too is being honest as well?  Again, you haven't even attempted to explain your comment so please don't pretend that you have reason to believe that I wouldn't accept it.  I've already admitted I was mistaken about something in this thread - self selecting polling.  I'm perfectly ok with being corrected.  I don't appreciate your automatic assertions that I'm being dishonest, that's not participating in an honest conversation.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Ignoring the specific accusation made by AngryTiger about minorities and instantly being believed, I do think your post is simply minimizing the experiences of a victim (the person who was forced to leave because of a false accusation).




That's deliberate. I don't believe that missing out on a day of gaming rises to anything _*near*_ the level of victimhood experienced by those who are forced to deal with harassment.



> Why are you ignoring this victim but focusing on others?




I'm not ignoring the first "victim". I'm simply explaining that I'm comfortable with the very minor risk of the first sort of victimization given how incredibly mild its effects are, if it means that I can in the process minimize the much greater risk of the second sort of victimization.



> Moreover, you're assuming that its just having to go home.  It very well could be a ban from a store or event.




The venue's response should be reasonable, and the magnitude of that response is ultimately at the discretion of those managing the venue. I'm not going to get into the business of trying to write a harassment policy.



> I'm also skeptical about the chances of such policies improving the overall level of civility.




You can be skeptical. And you can set that skepticism aside temporarily to give this a shot.



> I can imagine people being upset that their friends are unjustly being removed, creating ill feelings to the person who alleged the harassment.  It could incentize abusive behavior by giving people a way of removing people they don't like simply because of a harassment complaint.




There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of venues that employ harassment policies similar to this. Your concerns would have more weight if this were actually an issue, but it isn't.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> That's deliberate. I don't believe that missing out on a day of gaming rises to anything _*near*_ the level of victimhood experienced by those who are forced to deal with harassment.




And if they tell you that you don't understand what they've experienced, then what?  They'll tell you about the humiliation of being removed infront of their peers, perhaps people actually believe the false accusation, perhaps they don't get invited into as many groups.  You're doing the exact same thing that others have made accusations against in this very same thread, dismissing experiences.




Dannager said:


> I'm not ignoring the first "victim". I'm simply explaining that I'm comfortable with the very minor risk of the first sort of victimization given how incredibly mild its effects are, if it means that I can in the process minimize the much greater risk of the second sort of victimization.




How do you know the risk of this occurring is minor?  How do you know it would minimize the risk of actual harassment?  And again, why are you dismissing the victim by putting them in quotation marks?  Are you going to tell them that their experiences are wrong if they honestly feel victimized?



Dannager said:


> The venue's response should be reasonable, and the magnitude of that response is ultimately at the discretion of those managing the venue. I'm not going to get into the business of trying to write a harassment policy.




That's fine, just please don't assume that the punishment is simply going home for the day and that they'll get to go back without any other issues.



Dannager said:


> There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of venues that employ harassment policies similar to this. Your concerns would have more weight if this were actually an issue, but it isn't.




Similar to what?  Instantly believing the person claiming harassment?  I don't think so.


----------



## dave2008

GMSkarka said:


> Clear policy.   Zero tolerance.   If you are accused of harassment or assault, you are asked to leave, and your ticket price is refunded.   The instances of false accusation are so small in these situations, it's literally not worth making a policy allowance for that in the name of "balance."   Again, we're not talking about prosecution here, but attendance to a privately-owned event.  The owner can boot anybody they like -- and with a ticket refund, there's even less grounds for claims of "injustice."
> 
> Again -- this is for situations where legal authorities are not called in.   Obviously, in those cases, the police handle the matter.




The refund is a good idea.  And while a agree that this is such minor issue (false accusations) that it can mostly be ignored; however, my inner sense of justice wants to find a middle ground.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> I do think your post is simply minimizing the experiences of a victim (the person who was forced to leave because of a false accusation).  Why are you ignoring this victim but focusing on others?




If you are seriously claiming that being prevented from pretending to be an elf for a weekend (OR being banned from a store, since you brought that up, too) is somehow a parity of "victimhood" with somebody who has been sexually harassed or assaulted, I think we can safely ignore you from here on out, because you're either purposefully trolling, or you genuinely believe that (which might be even worse).

Jesus Christ, kids -- you've gotta be kidding me with this nonsense.


----------



## GMSkarka

dave2008 said:


> however, my inner sense of justice wants to find a middle ground.




There isn't one.   

There's no "middle ground" when one side is sexual harassment & assault, and the other is being asked to leave.   There's no parity there, so no reason to demand "balance."   To be blunt, the gamer tendency to want "balance" in situations which ARE NOT A GAME is part of what makes this issue worse.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> And if they tell you that you don't understand what they've experienced, then what?




That I don't understand what it's like to be accused of something I didn't do? Please. Everyone knows what that's like.



> They'll tell you about the humiliation of being removed infront of their peers, perhaps people actually believe the false accusation, perhaps they don't get invited into as many groups.




They'll tell me, I'll nod and explain that it's a shame, but that's just the way it's going to have to be.



> You're doing the exact same thing that others have made accusations against in this very same thread, dismissing experiences.




On the contrary, I'm acknowledging those experiences, but explaining that one sort demands a level of attention and care that the other does not.



> How do you know the risk of this occurring is minor?  How do you know it would minimize the risk of actual harassment?




I don't - not with certainty, at least. But I'm willing to try it out to see what happens.



> And again, why are you dismissing the victim by putting them in quotation marks?




Because you're deliberately using the term "victim" in the second context to falsely equivocate the two experiences, and I'm shooting you down. If your definition of "victimhood" includes not being able to attend someone else's gaming event, I don't have much in the way of patience for your argument.



> Are you going to tell them that their experiences are wrong if they honestly feel victimized?




Nope. I'm just going to tell them that their experience is something that they're going to have to deal with.



> That's fine, just please don't assume that the punishment is simply going home for the day and that they'll get to go back without any other issues.




It may be, or it may not. I'd be a lot more concerned if someone were capable of coming forward with an actual example (or, better yet, dozens of examples) of a real-world situation where being falsely accused of harassment in a gaming environment led to the collapse of their network of gaming peers. As it is, I see that as incredibly unlikely. At the absolute worst, I'm guessing, you might not be able to return to a given event or venue. You'll find another. And if this becomes such a repeated problem that you eventually exhaust your available gaming options, _perhaps consider asking yourself if you aren't the problem after all._



> Similar to what?  Instantly believing the person claiming harassment?  I don't think so.




It isn't about "believing" one way or the other. It's about resolving the immediate problem. You're looking for _justice_, and venue operators are looking to move on. You being removed isn't an acknowledgment of your guilt, it's simply a solution to an issue.


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> If you are seriously claiming that being prevented from pretending to be an elf for a weekend (OR being banned from a store, since you brought that up, too) is somehow a parity of "victimhood" with somebody who has been sexually harassed or assaulted, I think we can safely ignore you from here on out, because you're either purposefully trolling, or you genuinely believe that (which might be even worse).




I never made a comparison between being removed for being falsely accused and anything else, so yes that assumption is entirely on your end.  All I've said is that someone has been wronged if they've been falsely accused and by a single testimony alone have been removed from an event. I view people who've been wronged as victims.  It's that simple.  I don't think its relevant to rank victims if the intent is to dismiss some of them all together.

Example: Oh stop complaining about your in-game character getting raped, women are raped in real life!

Yes, women are raped in real life, but that seems to be minimizing the victim who's had their character raped in a table top setting.  Likewise, telling someone who's been unfairly removed from an event because of a single false report is still a victim, and mentioning other "bigger victims" only to dismiss that persons experiences is no better than the example I gave above.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> I never made (...)




Ah.  OK.   Trolling.

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> That I don't understand what it's like to be accused of something I didn't do? Please. Everyone knows what that's like.




So you're no different from someone who's been sexually assaulted telling someone else to suck it up because they've also been sexually assaulted and it wasn't that bad?  It's shocking how similar you are to the thing you claim to be fighting.


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> Ah.  OK.   Trolling.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.




Citation please, when did I ever compare victims of false accusations to anyone else?  If I'm trolling you'll find it.  If you're misunderstanding, purposefully or otherwise, you won't.


----------



## dave2008

GMSkarka said:


> There isn't one.
> 
> There's no "middle ground" when one side is sexual harassment & assault, and the other is being asked to leave.   There's no parity there, so no reason to demand "balance."   To be blunt, the gamer tendency to want "balance" in situations which ARE NOT A GAME is part of what makes this issue worse.




I'm not a balance advocate in gaming, so my problems must lie elsewhere.  I don't think the middle ground is between harassment/assault & being asked to leave.  I think the middle ground is between right to a safe environment and the right to attend.  There may not be away to do it well, but I don't think just dismissing it is helpful either.  At the minimum a middle policy can be a stepping stone to something better.  I guess I am an advocate for incremental improvement rather than I one large sweeping fix, which I don't think will happen.

To be clear, I believe I share your general feelings on this issue, I'm just trying to find a way to bring the different sides closer together so that we might be able to make some progress.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> So you're no different from someone who's been sexually assaulted telling someone else to suck it up because they've also been sexually assaulted and it wasn't that bad?  It's shocking how similar you are to the thing you claim to be fighting.




Out of curiosity, Taneras, what was the _correct_ answer, there? Should I have told you that I have no idea what their experience is like, giving you the opportunity to explain how awful I am for presuming to know? Or was it better to say what I did, giving you the opportunity to explain how awful I am for minimizing someone else's experience?

You haven't handled yourself particularly well, here. When you start to conflate having to leave a game day with being the victim of sexual assault, you have lost whatever sense of perspective you might once have possessed. Take a step back, and maybe revisit this conversation once you've had a chance to take stock of where you stand.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Citation please, when did I ever compare victims of false accusations to anyone else?






Taneras said:


> you're no different from someone who's been sexually assaulted telling someone else to suck it up because they've also been sexually assaulted and it wasn't that bad?




Apparently being told to deal with a false accusation is _no different_ than being told to deal with sexual assault. Didn't have to hunt very far for that one.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Out of curiosity, Taneras, what was the _correct_ answer, there? Should I have told you that I have no idea what their experience is like, giving you the opportunity to explain how awful I am for presuming to know? Or was it better to say what I did, giving you the opportunity to explain how awful I am for minimizing someone else's experience?




I don't know, I wouldn't have minimized the experiences of someone who was falsely accused in the first place.



Dannager said:


> When you start to conflate having to leave a game day with being the victim of sexual assault




I never said that, I just said that they were also a victim.  That doesn't mean that I'm claiming all victims are equal in their experiences, though.  Clearly they people who have been falsely accused aren't on par with sexual assault victims.  But I guess I'll have to repeat this another dozen times before people actually believe that not only do I not support such a stance but that I never even suggested that I did in the first place.


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> I never made a comparison between being removed for being falsely accused and anything else, so yes that assumption is entirely on your end.  All I've said is that someone has been wronged if they've been falsely accused and by a single testimony alone have been removed from an event. I view people who've been wronged as victims.  It's that simple.  I don't think its relevant to rank victims if the intent is to dismiss some of them all together.
> 
> Example: Oh stop complaining about your in-game character getting raped, women are raped in real life!
> 
> Yes, women are raped in real life, but that seems to be minimizing the victim who's had their character raped in a table top setting.  Likewise, telling someone who's been unfairly removed from an event because of a single false report is still a victim, and mentioning other "bigger victims" only to dismiss that persons experiences is no better than the example I gave above.




So how about we try to come up with a way to minimize both?

The only way to verify these things, or refute them, with the greatest degree of certainty is to have a record of them.  So, more cameras that are placed so as to capture such events would seem like a relatively simple step in the right direction.  A greater security presence could also help in that you have more opportunities for eye-witnesses.  Spreading awareness that harassment and assault and false accusations of the same will not be tolerated is also a good way to make potential witnesses more alert for these things.


----------



## atomicovermind

View attachment 76111


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> I don't know, I wouldn't have minimized the experiences of someone who was falsely accused in the first place.




Adorable.



> I never said that, I just said that they were also a victim.




Yes. You use the same loaded terminology to apply to both. That's the point. You're doing it deliberately, and it's intellectually dishonest.



> That doesn't mean that I'm claiming all victims are equal in their experiences, though.




No, but using the term "victim" for both means that you've shifted the conversation towards a concern over justice for both parties, when that isn't where your priorities should be.



> Clearly they people who have been falsely accused aren't on par with sexual assault victims.




_*Then stop using every available opportunity to tell people that removing someone from an event is just like forcing someone to deal with sexual assault.*_


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Apparently being told to deal with a false accusation is _no different_ than being told to deal with sexual assault. Didn't have to hunt very far for that one.




Yes, "you're no different from someone who's been sexually assaulted telling someone else to suck it up because they've also been sexually assaulted and it wasn't that bad" in that you're pretending to know how they felt in that situation when they could have experienced it differently.

I'm not comparing the experiences of the falsely accused and the sexual assault victims, I'm comparing your method of dismissal of each as the same ("I've experienced that and its not that bad").


----------



## GMSkarka

dave2008 said:


> I don't think the middle ground is between harassment/assault & being asked to leave.  I think the middle ground is between right to a safe environment and the right to attend.




See, that may be the issue.  I don't think there is such a thing as a "right to attend."   It's a private event, and the owner can boot anyone they wish, for any reason.  It's in all of the Terms of Service that we all click "AGREE" to when we buy tickets for Cons.

Refunding their ticket purchase is a courtesy, intended to remove some of the sting -- since, by the letter of the Terms of Service that most Cons operate under, they don't even have to do that.  "We reserve the right to deny service," etc.


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Clear policy. Zero tolerance. If you are accused of harassment or assault, you are asked to leave, and your ticket price is refunded. The instances of false accusation are so small in these situations, it's literally not worth making a policy allowance for that in the name of "balance." Again, we're not talking about prosecution here, but attendance to a privately-owned event. The owner can boot anybody they like -- and with a ticket refund, there's even less grounds for claims of "injustice."
> 
> Again -- this is for situations where legal authorities are not called in. Obviously, in those cases, the police handle the matter.



I'm fond of this solution. In a world where you're going to make a mistake sooner or later, erring on throwing out someone who doesn't deserve to be thrown out is probably the better solution from a Con Organizer perspective, and refunding the ticket price is a nice gesture to the distant and unusual possibility of it being an unfounded accusation. 

It seems like the counter-point basically amounts to "being thrown out of a con is worse than being sexually harassed",  which really just sounds like those people not really understanding the pain of being sexually harassed (or caring about someone who was). The Pandora Project isn't a bad starting point for those who want to educate themselves about what it's like to be sexually harassed, but ultimately, you can't force empathy. 

I haven't ever actually heard of *anyone actually being unjustly thrown out of a con due to an accusation of harassment ever*, so while being thrown out of a con for doing something vile you didn't do would suck, that suck seems only hypothetical while the pain of people who experience sexual assault at cons is ACTUAL. Even if the former pain was actual, as well, it seems much more mild and much more rare than sexual assault. It sucks, but in an imperfect world, it's the _least_ suck. It absolutely is a better situation, IMO, than allowing a harasser to walk around unpunished simply because there's no "proof." That's not a danger I would put my wife or children in.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> you're pretending to know how they felt in that situation when they could have experienced it differently.




"But they could have experienced it differently!" isn't a blanket excuse for behavior, nor does it erase the actual problem. Again, you're concerned about "justice" for both sides, and that isn't the concern a venue operator (or the community at large) has.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Yes. You use the same loaded terminology to apply to both. That's the point. You're doing it deliberately, and it's intellectually dishonest.




Wow, the word "victim" is a loaded term?



Dannager said:


> No, but using the term "victim" for both means that you've shifted the conversation towards a concern over justice for both parties, when that isn't where your priorities should be.




So you don't think that justice should be applied to everyone?  Minor injustices, or at least things you deem as minor injustices, should be over looked right?



Dannager said:


> _*Then stop using every available opportunity to tell people that removing someone from an event is just like forcing someone to deal with sexual assault.*_




I said the methods you've used to dismiss someone being ejected are no different from the ones sometimes employed to minimize the experiences of sexual assault victims.  That's it.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> "But they could have experienced it differently!" isn't a blanket excuse for behavior, nor does it erase the actual problem.




For what behavior?  All I've said is that you're potentially brushing off someone who was a victim of a false accusation.



Dannager said:


> Again, you're concerned about "justice" for both sides, and that isn't the concern a venue operator (or the community at large) has.




I don't think you, or even the few people in this thread, speak for the community.  And yes I'm concerned about justice for everyone, you make that sound like its a bad thing.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Wow, the word "victim" is a loaded term?




Yes, absolutely, when used in that way.



> So you don't think that justice should be applied to everyone?




I don't believe that justice is always an immediate or absolute goal. Other goals can precede it in priority. This is one of those cases.



> Minor injustices, or at least things you deem as minor injustices, should be over looked right?




You can explore those injustices on your own time. Meanwhile, the venue operator is going to put an end to the immediate problem.



> I said the methods you've used to dismiss someone being ejected are no different from the ones sometimes employed to minimize the experiences of sexual assault victims.  That's it.




And you're wrong. I'm not going to hash this particular point out any further with you.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> For what behavior?  All I've said is that you're potentially brushing off someone who was a victim of a false accusation.




It isn't my job, as a hypothetical venue operator, to address concerns of justice. It's my job to keep my event running smoothly and to foster a sense of welcoming and acceptance. You can bring your concerns over personal justice to someone who has the time and patience to deal with them.



> I don't think you, or even the few people in this thread, speak for the community.




I wouldn't claim to, with certainty. I do, however, know which way things are headed. And it isn't the way you want.



> And yes I'm concerned about justice for everyone, you make that sound like its a bad thing.




It is, when petty concerns over justice and imagined slights override your good sense and other priorities. When conflict takes place in an environment that should be conflict-free, the top priority is not _"justice"_. The top priority is _putting an end to the conflict before it gets further out of hand_.

Ironic, isn't it, that the sort of person who decries the notion of "social justice" is also the sort of person _obsessed_ with social justice when they're confronted with the possibility that they might one day be subject to an injustice of their own.


----------



## GMSkarka

Dannager said:


> And you're wrong. I'm not going to hash this particular point out any further with you.




Probably for the best.  If anybody had any doubts before that he was trolling, it has been well and truly put to rest at this point.  Best to leave him in the box with Fergurg, Wolvercote, AWizardInDallas, et. al.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Yes, absolutely, when used in that way.




Perhaps we're using different definitions.  I consider someone a victim if they've been wronged by someone or some group.  Here the wrong would be a false accusation leading to punishment that isn't deserved.  If this isn't what a victim is to you, fine.  What would you label it as though?



Dannager said:


> I don't believe that justice is always an immediate or absolute goal. Other goals can precede it in priority. This is one of those cases.




I do, because if its not then the results could be unjust.  I'm also the type of person who doesn't want to give up justice/rights/freedoms/whatever just for security.  I'll mention something I said earlier in this thread to someone else.  It seems at the most basic level there seems to be vastly different ideologies behind each side here.



Dannager said:


> And you're wrong. I'm not going to hash this particular point out any further with you.




Please don't pretend you ever tried to clarify your statement about you knowing what its like to be falsely accused.


----------



## Taneras

MechaPilot said:


> So how about we try to come up with a way to minimize both?
> 
> The only way to verify these things, or refute them, with the greatest degree of certainty is to have a record of them.  So, more cameras that are placed so as to capture such events would seem like a relatively simple step in the right direction.  A greater security presence could also help in that you have more opportunities for eye-witnesses.  Spreading awareness that harassment and assault and false accusations of the same will not be tolerated is also a good way to make potential witnesses more alert for these things.




I think cameras are a great start, its a cheap and effective way to catch some of the complaints.  I also think an even more important step would be to push the idea that its important to report incidents you see, even if they didn't happen to you.  I don't think its fair to take action on a single report, however if multiple people are backing it up then its much easier to take it serious and actually take action.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Perhaps we're using different definitions.  I consider someone a victim if they've been wronged by someone or some group.




Okay, stop. This isn't about definitions. This is about context. When someone talks about being _hurt_ when they were cheated on, you don't counter with, "Well you know what else _hurts?_ Papercuts!" Yes, both uses fit the literal definition of "hurt", but one of them is so far removed from the other that using the same term to refer to both in the same discussion becomes less about mutual understanding and more about an attempt to frame the discussion in a certain equivocating light.



> Here the wrong would be a false accusation leading to punishment that isn't deserved.  If this isn't what a victim is to you, fine.  What would you label it as though?




Again, you see this as "punishment". This isn't about punishment, judgment, or justice. It's about resolving conflict.



> I do, because if its not then the results could be unjust.




Oh no. How awful. A minor case of the personal injustices. How will humanity ever recover.



> I'm also the type of person who doesn't want to give up justice/rights/freedoms/whatever just for security.




Oh christ, if you start throwing around poorly-understood Franklin quotes, I'm out.



> I'll mention something I said earlier in this thread to someone else.  It seems at the most basic level there seems to be vastly different ideologies behind each side here.




_OBVIOUSLY._


----------



## I'm A Banana

Taneras said:


> I think cameras are a great start, its a cheap and effective way to catch some of the complaints.  I also think an even more important step would be to push the idea that its important to report incidents you see, even if they didn't happen to you.




These aren't bad ideas, either. (I like  [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] 's further ideas of more security and including false accusations in the con agreement you sign!) More cameras and security might make con tickets more expensive - would you be willing to pay an extra $20 or so to make sure the con's got more robust security? Replace a few of our Jimbos with some trained professionals? I know I'd be down, and I'm someone who is usually quite suspicious about increased security and surveillance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> poorly-understood Franklin quotes




And that one _IS_ a very poorly-understood quote...


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> It isn't my job, as a hypothetical venue operator, to address concerns of justice.




I'd argue its your responsibility as a member of a society that prides itself on the ideal of justice.



Dannager said:


> It's my job to keep my event running smoothly and to foster a sense of welcoming and acceptance.




And you accomplish that by automatically believing any claim and forcing people to go home for the day?  Yea I can't see how that wouldn't be abused.  I feel that my friend was falsely accused so I make my own false accusation.  Or the person in question also has an accusation to make, I guess in that instance its who gets to the venue operator first?  Before you know it half the event has been sent home for the day and the other half has gone home because the entire thing was a disaster.  It's clear you haven't thought this through.



Dannager said:


> I wouldn't claim to, with certainty. I do, however, know which way things are headed. And it isn't the way you want.




It sure is, which is why I'm being vocal.  I do think the silent majority has yet to speak up.  I've seen this play out in other groups as well, just because the current trend is one way doesn't mean it'll continue to go that way.



Dannager said:


> When conflict takes place in an environment that should be conflict-free, the top priority is not _"justice"_.




If that's the case, whats to stop the venue organizer from ignoring justice for the person claiming that they were harassed?



Dannager said:


> The top priority is _putting an end to the conflict before it gets further out of hand_.




And, again, so we're clear.  The policy you're suggesting is to believe anyone who's made a claim without anything else?  Keep in mind what inspired this from the start, AngryTiger(I believe was his name) was concerned with minorities getting believed automatically without any evidence but their own testimony.  While I made it clear I'm not making the same point as they were, I do think there is danger in simply beinging anyone who's making a harassment claim.

Maybe you'll realize that if people constantly make claims against you and you're never able to make it a whole session at these events.



Dannager said:


> Ironic, isn't it, that the sort of person who decries the notion of "social justice" is also the sort of person _obsessed_ with social justice when they're confronted with the possibility that they might one day be subject to an injustice of their own.




Not at all, I just prefer actual justice.  Mod rule isn't the way to go.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> Maybe you'll realize that if people constantly make claims against you and you're never able to make it a whole session at these events.





If people "constantly make claims against you", perhaps one should ask what it is it about one's own behavior which is leading to that happening.  These things don't happen in a vacuum, y'know.  There's not some secret cabal of Cootie-Bearing-Wimmens that decided "let's all falsely accuse this guy at every con he's at!"

If you "constantly" smell smoke, it might behoove you to _just maybe_ consider that fire might be the possible source.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> This is about context. When someone talks about being _hurt_ when they were cheated on, you don't counter with, "Well you know what else _hurts?_ Papercuts!"




Thankfully that's not what I did.  I simply pointed out that in an effort to create resolution you could also be causing harm to people.  You might not find it as a big deal, but but if progressives have taught me anything its that you can't dismiss someones experiences like that.



Dannager said:


> Again, you see this as "punishment". This isn't about punishment, judgment, or justice. It's about resolving conflict.




Removing the people making complaints would serve that end as well, but something tells me you'd be against that.  It wouldn't be just or fair would it?  Tough...

Of course I'm not actually suggesting that...  Just making a point.

I'm done for now, heading out to eat.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> I'd argue its your responsibility as a member of a society that prides itself on the ideal of justice.




I don't really care what you'd argue. If you believe, fundamentally, that concerns of immediate justice override literally every other priority, there will be no common ground on this.



> And you accomplish that by automatically believing any claim and forcing people to go home for the day?




*It isn't about "believing any claim."* I shouldn't have to repeat this. Being removed from the event _is not someone passing judgment on you, declaring you guilty, or otherwise endorsing a particular belief about whether something did or did not take place_.



> Yea I can't see how that wouldn't be abused. I feel that my friend was falsely accused so I make my own false accusation.  Or the person in question also has an accusation to make, I guess in that instance its who gets to the venue operator first?  Before you know it half the event has been sent home for the day and the other half has gone home because the entire thing was a disaster.  It's clear you haven't thought this through.




I'm curious - you're aware that a huge number of events and venues work like this _right now_, right? Do you believe that those events regularly collapse into chaos and become wastelands devoid of people because of wild accusations?

Have _you_ thought this through?



> It sure is, which is why I'm being vocal.  I do think the silent majority has yet to speak up.  I've seen this play out in other groups as well, just because the current trend is one way doesn't mean it'll continue to go that way.




It will.



> If that's the case, whats to stop the venue organizer from ignoring justice for the person claiming that they were harassed?




The scarcity of false accusations versus the commonplace nature of casual harassment means that you're more likely to avoid future conflict by removing the accused than by removing the accuser. I'm astonished that this needs to be explained.



> And, again, so we're clear.  The policy you're suggesting is to believe anyone who's made a claim without anything else?




No. I've stated multiple times that "believing" one way or the other doesn't enter into it.



> Keep in mind what inspired this from the start, AngryTiger(I believe was his name) was concerned with minorities getting believed automatically without any evidence but their own testimony.  While I made it clear I'm not making the same point as they were, I do think there is danger in simply beinging anyone who's making a harassment claim.




Yes, that's a danger (though a tiny, tiny one). Fortunately, no one is saying anything about belief or judgment.



> Maybe you'll realize that if people constantly make claims against you and you're never able to make it a whole session at these events.




Why the _everloving hell_ would people be constantly making claims of harassment against you? Have you ever considered that if this is a persistent problem for you, _you might actually be the problem?_



> Not at all, I just prefer actual justice.  Mod rule isn't the way to go.




I _think_ you mean "mob rule", but I can't tell, since it's actually "venue organizer and manager rule".


----------



## Dannager

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that one _IS_ a very poorly-understood quote...




One of the worst.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Thankfully that's not what I did.  I simply pointed out that in an effort to create resolution you could also be causing harm to people.




And my argument, and the argument of others here, is that the very minor risk of the very minor harm of being removed from an event is worth it. Again, there's no need to rehash this.



> Removing the people making complaints would serve that end as well, but something tells me you'd be against that.




*Again*, you're more likely to avoid future conflict by removing the accused than the accuser.

Also, in the event that you _did_ unjustly remove someone, it's _much_ less harmful to tell someone, "Sorry we removed you, it looks like the complaint against you was fabricated, but we had to be on the safe side," than it is to tell someone, "Sorry we removed you, it looks like you were groped after all, but we had to be on the safe side."


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> but if progressives have taught me anything...




...and there we are.

It's almost like playing Bingo with these guys, isn't it?


----------



## Dannager

GMSkarka said:


> ...and there we are.
> 
> It's almost like playing Bingo with these guys, isn't it?




It's almost a rule of the internet - as a discussion continues the probability that a discussion participant's political leanings will be revealed to be exactly what you suspected approaches 1.


----------



## GMSkarka

Dannager said:


> It's almost a rule of the internet - as a discussion continues the probability that a discussion participant's political leanings will be revealed to be exactly what you suspected approaches 1.




It was fairly easy to spot the alpha-displays of the Bearded FedoraTarian early on, to be fair.


----------



## Tormyr

I am a male DM who made the mistake of putting a case of insinuated rape into a game session.

The party was in pursuit of a bad guy through ruins and tried to get ahead of him by gating. They did not check ahead well and gated into a empty clearing with a cooking pit. Shortly several trolls came forth and surrounded the party asking why they were here. The wizard (who is also the cook) piped up with, "To cook you dinner!" (Hey it had worked before.) They were taken to the beholder boss of the trolls and talked their way into not having to fight the trolls and make dinner instead.  A female troll had taken a liking to the cook, and we she tasted his food, she immediately scooped him up and took him back to her hut, everyone seemed to be enjoying the description so for, so I made some comments about hearing some yells from the tent and ended the session.

When I later told my wife about the session, she verbally smacked me up the side of my head. I apologized for the insinuation to the player, and he and I worked out that his PC dimension doored out and left an illusion of his dead form. His PC would then haunt the rest of the party who had left him at the hands of the troll.

At the next session, I started by apologizing to the entire group and expressed that I did not want rape in my game at all. We then carried on with the party discovering the body/illusion and failing their insight checks. The wizard haunted the party for the rest of the night. 

The players really enjoyed both sessions and accepted my apology. It was a really difficult experience for me because of how I normally feel about such subjects and how easily I slipped into that mistake. I do not understand the misogyny, bigotry, and other things that have plagued gaming and agree that they have no place in gaming, digital, tabletop or otherwise.


----------



## Fergurg

Taneras said:


> I think cameras are a great start, its a cheap and effective way to catch some of the complaints.  I also think an even more important step would be to push the idea that its important to report incidents you see, even if they didn't happen to you.  I don't think its fair to take action on a single report, however if multiple people are backing it up then its much easier to take it serious and actually take action.




I think we have our solution. More cameras, more security, and a "See something, say something" policy.

Cuts down on the harassment by its very presence, provides the ability to prove the true accusations, and provides safeguards against innocent people being falsely accused.

Now, let's stop talking about implementing a policy of "The accusation is the evidence" and talk about how we can implement these ideas instead.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Dannager said:
			
		

> Again, you're more likely to avoid future conflict by removing the accused than the accuser.
> 
> Also, in the event that you did unjustly remove someone, it's much less harmful to tell someone, "Sorry we removed you, it looks like the complaint against you was fabricated," than it is to tell someone, "Sorry we removed you, it looks like you were groped after all!"




Not only that, but if you remove the accuser, you create a chilling effect that means that more harassment goes unreported, which can then create the impression that harassment "doesn't really happen here," which can then make it a safe place to get away with harassment. In a world where we all agree that harassment is bad and think it should be stopped, that's the opposite of what we want! There are better systems! 



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> It isn't about "believing any claim." I shouldn't have to repeat this. Being removed from the event is not someone passing judgment on you, declaring you guilty, or otherwise endorsing a particular belief about whether something did or did not take place.



I think this is worth repeating - it's not like con organizers are moral or legal judges! They're just trying to keep the peace at their nerdfest. Tossing out accused harassers just seems like the best way to do that (even though sometimes they'll be tossing out innocent people). Tossing out one innocent person vs. letting several women get harassed - not necessarily an _easy_ call, but I think I'd err in favor of tossing out that one innocent person.



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> GMSkarka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taneras said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if progressives have taught me anything...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and there we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost like playing Bingo with these guys, isn't it?
> It's almost a rule of the internet - as a discussion continues the probability that a discussion participant's political leanings will be revealed to be exactly what you suspected approaches 1.
Click to expand...



It's weird to me that it even is brought up, honestly. It's not like "Harassment is bad so lets talk about what we can do to minimize it" is really a _political_ argument. It doesn't matter what I think about state-controlled markets or the estate tax or the New Deal or UKIP or Democratic Socialists or _Roe v. Wade_ or whatever. We can all basically agree that harassment is bad and that we should do what we can to minimize it! I don't think there's anyone who's exactly pro-harassment as a political point! 

I mean, what, there's some grand left-wing liberal conspiracy out there to...stop people from groping asses without consent?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannager said:


> *It isn't about "believing any claim."* I shouldn't have to repeat this. Being removed from the event _is not someone passing judgment on you, declaring you guilty, or otherwise endorsing a particular belief about whether something did or did not take place_.
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> The scarcity of false accusations versus the commonplace nature of casual harassment means that you're more likely to avoid future conflict by removing the accused than by removing the accuser. I'm astonished that this needs to be explained.




In the courses I've taken taught by members of the International Association of Venue Managers (formerly International Association of Arena Managers) and the law-enforcement community, they routinely bring up stats about how, why and when they remove the accused, the accuser, or both from a given situation.  Overwhelmingly, unless they believe the accuser will remain in danger or become endangered, the preference is to remove the accused.  Removing both is the next preferred option.

Whether or not it is provable the accused actually did something, stats tell them that- in most cases- the situation is more likely to de-escalate than if the accuser is removed.  Serial false accusers are vanishingly rare.

If the accuser is removed, OTOH, those accused who are actually guilty of said offense (and whatever allies they may have) tend to take this as license, and will continue to re-offend.


----------



## Elf Witch

dave2008 said:


> I agree, there are varying degrees.  In addition, I would say sexual harassment is one of the largest and most serious issues facing our world.  So even if there is less sexual harassment in the gaming community than the population as a whole I am guessing it is a big problem.  My comment was about your apparent attitude that if the gaming culture reflects the culture as whole with regard to harassment then that is as it should be.  I don't know if that is truly your attitude, but that is how it came off to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, and I am not advocating a B-W solution.  I am advocating working toward a better solution. That is why I said "...remain(ing) the same means victims get caught in the net."  I am making a stance against the status quo, with the implied intent to make things better.  To move forward on this subject how about these suggestions (regarding conventions and organized play):
> 
> Clearly stated policy against harassment (online and in print posted at the venue, tickets, etc.), stating possibilty of prosecution/legal action against perpetrators
> 
> if there is an issue, you could follow the following guidelines (these are very much WIP):
> 
> 1) Clear evidence that someone was harassed:  Harasser is ejected from the event, banned from future events, and turned over to prosecuting authorities.
> 
> 2) Clear evidence that someone has lied about harrassment:  The liar is ejected from the event, and banned from future events.
> 
> 3) No evidence:  Both parties are ejected from the event.  The supposed harrasser is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises.  The supposed victim is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises to a safe location.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I admit a forum post is the not best method for conveying ones ideas and that statement came off a little wrong as I am a strong advocate for the innocent.  My point was we should protect victims at least as much, and possibly more, as we protect the innocent.  Remember, victims are innocent + being abused.






dave2008 said:


> Agreed.  I don't really believe false accusations are an issue.
> 
> Any suggestion to improve the guide?  It helps everyone if there is a clear understanding to what will happen if a policy is violated.  I think that is the best way we can work against harassment.  Clear policy and clear adjudication.  Do you disagree?  If so, what do you suggest.
> 
> Remember, this is meant as a deterrent more than anything.  Ideally these guides would coincide with more safety/security patrols and camera servailence, so there is less likelihood of a lack of evidence.
> 
> Please understand I am coming at this from the prospective of a parent. I've been in many situations where my children accuse each other of lying. Currently, I would rather punish them both than the guilty get off completely free.  That was where I was coming from.  Kick them both out, but, as I mentioned, make sure the potential victim is escorted to safe place.  I agree it might not be the best solution, can you suggest a better method.




That is pretty draconian and unnecessary and accomplishes nothing. 

If you throw out anyone who reports harassment without evidence then you are setting up an environment that people being harassed won't report it. In my case I had no evidence there was no camera in the elevator. Harassers can be pretty smart they will just make sure no one can see them do it.

And throwing out a con goer without evidence is also not the way to go. You talk to them you let them know that this has been reported and remind them of the anti harassment policy. And then you keep an eye on them. Knowing they have been caught is often enough to make them stop. 

This is how most of the Worldcons now handle it. As I posted earlier I know people who run cons and they don't want to just toss people out without evidence but they do want it clear that harassment will not be tolerated. So most of them use a two strike rule if there is no evidence and that is more than one person complains about harassment by an individual then that person is gone.    

I will say this some of these harassers are really clueless and don't see what they are doing as wrong. My friend who runs con security told me about this guy who asked a female cosplayer to come to his room and sit on his face. When confronted by security the guy was incredulous that what he did was wrong and didn't see it as sexual harassment. Maybe being kicked out of the con without a refund taught him it was or at least that he shouldn't say that at another con.


----------



## Green1

Taking out the SJW stuff, if you run a convention most conventions and groups have rules dealing with being jerks. 

The convention or FLGS is there for folks to walk up into games. Some who may not get to game otherwise because of poor network or cruddy geographic location. And they are spending big money. (Or if FLGS may spend money)

 Now, I understand single guys being err.. intrigued by cute gamer girls. And girls who may not be into it and socially inept people not reading signals. No excuse. If someone is disrupting the game by hitting incessantly on someone not into it or disrupting the table, they should be warned. If it borders on something that could evolve into legal issues, the person being harassed should leave that person or group and that person or group should be warned or expelled depending on severity. If it is outright illegal, the person should spend the night in jail.

We do NOT need to create privileged classes, though or create witch hunts where someone is afraid to even look at a female wrong or allow female or male only spaces to a place where ALL come to game. There are private sessions in people's homes where you can exclude or include anyone and act how you want.

Oh, and careful, male and female, at the room parties and if you get drunk and DO hit on, kiss, or give mating signals please do not do this and go to private rooms at night with people if you are too drunk to make decisions. Responsibility and common sense. But if you are down for it, go ahead. Private hotel rooms is not the responsibility of the convention, but the individual.

There ARE very grey boundaries between responsibility and abuse.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> I think we have our solution. More cameras, more security, and a "See something, say something" policy.
> 
> Cuts down on the harassment by its very presence, provides the ability to prove the true accusations, and provides safeguards against innocent people being falsely accused.
> 
> Now, let's stop talking about implementing a policy of "The accusation is the evidence" and talk about how we can implement these ideas instead.




Instead? Nah, man, you could do BOTH and may your con EVEN BETTER at preventing and responding to harassment! If the security does its job, you won't need to ever implement the expulsion policy, but even just knowing its there will go a long way to making people safer away from the eyes of security and cameras (you know, it's not like there's surveillance in the bathrooms or whatever). 

Sure, you might throw out some people who are innocent once in a blue moon. Even if I was the one thrown out, I would still think it is a good policy!



			
				Green1 said:
			
		

> There ARE very grey boundaries between responsibility and abuse.




There really isn't! It's one big black and white boundary, and it's explicit, enthusiastic, and intentional consent. 

If you can't get or give that, it's a problem.

If you think that someone who gives it will later take it back, then _don't give yours._ Sometimes, it's okay to not have sexual contact with someone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm A Banana said:


> There really isn't! It's one big black and white boundary, and it's explicit, enthusiastic, and intentional consent.
> 
> If you can't get or give that, it's a problem.
> 
> If you think that someone who gives it will later take it back, then _don't give yours._ Sometimes, it's okay to not have sexual contact with someone.




I can't remember who said it, but: "All love is free love."

(IOW, if it isn't freely given, it isn't love.)


----------



## Libramarian

GMSkarka said:


> Clear policy.   Zero tolerance.   If you are accused of harassment or assault, you are asked to leave, and your ticket price is refunded.   The instances of false accusation are so small in these situations, it's literally not worth making a policy allowance for that in the name of "balance."




This is a terrible idea -- what happens when smelly neckbeard man accuses cute cosplay girl of harassment, because she rolled her eyes at him or beat him in a wargame? She should be thrown out immediately?

If you spent less mental energy on indulging your superiority complex over other gamers and more on thinking through the problem you're ostensibly trying to solve, you would have realized that the current standard (use your judgement about whether harassment actually occurred here) is actually very biased *in favor* of women (which is as it should be!). An easily abused zero tolerance rule would be much worse for women.

The problem is the gap between the rates of harassment reported during cons, and the rates of harassment reported by women in anonymous surveys.

Do I think this gap is caused by a conspiracy of women lying during the surveys? *No. *I do wonder if it's caused by a difference in the definition of harassment.

There's a clear distinction to be made between physical harassment (e.g. groping) and non-physical (e.g. catcalling). I suspect that women feel much more comfortable reporting non-physical harassment during surveys than during cons, and this accounts in large part for the aforementioned gap. I would be extremely surprised if physical harassment occurs during cons at a rate higher than it does during other events where men and women congregate in close proximity (e.g. concerts, festivals). Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make cons as secure and safe as possible. It does mean that I think we should maintain perspective and those of us who've never harassed anyone shouldn't get down on ourselves for being male gamers any more than male concert or festival goers.

Cons are a perfect storm for non-physical harassment because a) higher concentration of men with poor social skills *and* b) higher concentration of women who are shy and more sensitive.

How do we minimize the incidence of non-physical harassment? You can't prevent it with security. It's too subtle and pervasive.

The final solution would be to do what nightclubs do: face control. Simply turn away ugly and sketchy-looking men at the door. Incidences of women feeling "creeped out" will plummet. I'm not necessarily against this. Depends on the exact standards and whether it's done openly so that men who know they will fail them have a chance to avoid attending rather than be embarrassed at the door.

You'd be all for this I'm sure. I can tell by your attitude that you'd enjoy mocking the losers turned away.


----------



## Warbringer

If harassment claim is in public, ask others that witnessed the event for their view on what happened. If the events support the harassed, ask the harasser to remove themselves form the premise (escorted if need be); if the claims are not supported, suggest that the two people involved find different tables and avoid each other for the remainder of the con. At this point a chat with the person accused is warranted - suggest they be more cautious, request they refrain from discussing in public what happened, and in no way consider retaliation. To the claimee, if something similar happens, especially with the same person do not hesitate to contact the con-head immediately.

If the harassment claim was in private, call the police. Plain and simple.

All of this should of course be handles by the con-head


----------



## dave2008

GMSkarka said:


> See, that may be the issue.  I don't think there is such a thing as a "right to attend."   It's a private event, and the owner can boot anyone they wish, for any reason.  It's in all of the Terms of Service that we all click "AGREE" to when we buy tickets for Cons.
> 
> Refunding their ticket purchase is a courtesy, intended to remove some of the sting -- since, by the letter of the Terms of Service that most Cons operate under, they don't even have to do that.  "We reserve the right to deny service," etc.




That's a good point, that is not a right. There is still the practical part of my suggestion that you haven't commented on.


----------



## atomicovermind

Libramarian said:


> This is a terrible idea -- what happens when smelly neckbeard man accuses cute cosplay girl of harassment, because she rolled her eyes at him or beat him in a wargame? She should be thrown out immediately?




You could form a combat platoon with all the straw men in this posting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I actually agree that "Zero-tolerance" rules are generally a bad idea.  They are a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.  The end result is over punishment, including punishment of the demonstrably innocent.  Why?

Such regs are typically worded in such a way that- even in light of incontrovertible proof that there is a de minimis, merely technical or even NO violation of a law- those tasked with enforcement cannot act with discretion


----------



## dave2008

Elf Witch said:


> That is pretty draconian and unnecessary and accomplishes nothing.
> 
> If you throw out anyone who reports harassment without evidence then you are setting up an environment that people being harassed won't report it. In my case I had no evidence there was no camera in the elevator. Harassers can be pretty smart they will just make sure no one can see them do it.




Yep, I missed that part on the first draft.  To be clear I'm not really concerned with it being draconian (it is meant as deterent afterall); however, in my rush to get an idea down I failed to realize the how it would likely affect reporting of issues.  It clearly needs to be modified.  Already covered this in later posts.



Elf Witch said:


> And throwing out a con goer without evidence is also not the way to go. You talk to them you let them know that this has been reported and remind them of the anti harassment policy. And then you keep an eye on them. Knowing they have been caught is often enough to make them stop.
> 
> This is how most of the Worldcons now handle it. As I posted earlier I know people who run cons and they don't want to just toss people out without evidence but they do want it clear that harassment will not be tolerated. So most of them use a two strike rule if there is no evidence and that is more than one person complains about harassment by an individual then that person is gone.
> 
> I will say this some of these harassers are really clueless and don't see what they are doing as wrong. My friend who runs con security told me about this guy who asked a female cosplayer to come to his room and sit on his face. When confronted by security the guy was incredulous that what he did was wrong and didn't see it as sexual harassment. Maybe being kicked out of the con without a refund taught him it was or at least that he shouldn't say that at another con.




I see your point, but if that is the current standard and it doesn't seem to be working then we need 1) to better train those who enforce the standard, or 2) make a new standard.

Currently i am thinking that a very "draconian" standard might be a more effective deterrent. Though I agree my initial (WIP) idea is flawed.


----------



## Green1

I'm A Banana said:


> There really isn't! It's one big black and white boundary, and it's explicit, enthusiastic, and intentional consent.
> 
> If you can't get or give that, it's a problem.
> 
> If you think that someone who gives it will later take it back, then _don't give yours._ Sometimes, it's okay to not have sexual contact with someone.




Precisely.

There are a very large subgroup that is not talked about in the RenFair scene and RPG con scene that are into various flavors of polyamory, swinging, etc that have no issues with this.

By "responsibility", I mean NOT putting yourself in situations where you may be abused or in legal hot water, male or female. Things like getting so crapfaced you do not know what you are doing.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Libramarian said:
			
		

> This is a terrible idea -- what happens when smelly neckbeard man accuses cute cosplay girl of harassment, because she rolled her eyes at him or beat him in a wargame? She should be thrown out immediately?




Lots of cons have had zero tolerance policies for years now - has that ever actually happened? Is there any evidence that what you fear is real and not just a bogeyman?



> The final solution would be to do what nightclubs do: face control. Simply turn away ugly and sketchy-looking men at the door. Incidences of women feeling "creeped out" will plummet. I'm not necessarily against this. Depends on the exact standards and whether it's done openly so that men who know they will fail them have a chance to avoid attending rather than be embarrassed at the door.



It's not like nightclubs are places where zero harassment occurs, anyway - it's just a place where you know that security can throw you out even if you're innocent because you're making other people uncomfortable in their own judgement (subject to maybe some club code of conduct of some sort). I'm not sure I'd have much of an issue with a con implementing a similar policy, but it seems prone to the problem of letting the accused off scott-free on occasion that creates an environment where harassment isn't so much not done as it is done subtly. I think there's better solutions out there. 



			
				Green1 said:
			
		

> By "responsibility", I mean NOT putting yourself in situations where you may be abused or in legal hot water, male or female. Things like getting so crapfaced you do not know what you are doing.



That's generally useful personal advice, but what should cons do to help that? The most obvious solution is make the event "dry," but that seems like no fun to me and kind of unenforceable in practice anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In international sports, venues & countries keep lists of known offenders.  Do likewise.  Maintain a list of known offenders or multiply accused attendees/patrons.  You're on the list, you're persona non grata and are denied entry.

There is, of course, still the issue of proof, but again, this isn't about a criminal offense being tried in court.  This is maintaining peace in a venue.


----------



## Elf Witch

dave2008 said:


> I agree, there are varying degrees.  In addition, I would say sexual harassment is one of the largest and most serious issues facing our world.  So even if there is less sexual harassment in the gaming community than the population as a whole I am guessing it is a big problem.  My comment was about your apparent attitude that if the gaming culture reflects the culture as whole with regard to harassment then that is as it should be.  I don't know if that is truly your attitude, but that is how it came off to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, and I am not advocating a B-W solution.  I am advocating working toward a better solution. That is why I said "...remain(ing) the same means victims get caught in the net."  I am making a stance against the status quo, with the implied intent to make things better.  To move forward on this subject how about these suggestions (regarding conventions and organized play):
> 
> Clearly stated policy against harassment (online and in print posted at the venue, tickets, etc.), stating possibilty of prosecution/legal action against perpetrators
> 
> if there is an issue, you could follow the following guidelines (these are very much WIP):
> 
> 1) Clear evidence that someone was harassed:  Harasser is ejected from the event, banned from future events, and turned over to prosecuting authorities.
> 
> 2) Clear evidence that someone has lied about harrassment:  The liar is ejected from the event, and banned from future events.
> 
> 3) No evidence:  Both parties are ejected from the event.  The supposed harrasser is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises.  The supposed victim is escorted to their vehicle, hotel room, mode of transportation or off the premises to a safe location.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I admit a forum post is the not best method for conveying ones ideas and that statement came off a little wrong as I am a strong advocate for the innocent.  My point was we should protect victims at least as much, and possibly more, as we protect the innocent.  Remember, victims are innocent + being abused.






dave2008 said:


> Yep, I missed that part on the first draft.  To be clear I'm not really concerned with it being draconian (it is meant as deterent afterall); however, in my rush to get an idea down I failed to realize the how it would likely affect reporting of issues.  It clearly needs to be modified.  Already covered this in later posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, but if that is the current standard and it doesn't seem to be working then we need 1) to better train those who enforce the standard, or 2) make a new standard.
> 
> Currently i am thinking that a very "draconian" standard might be a more effective deterrent. Though I agree my initial (WIP) idea is flawed.




We don't know if it is working well because most cons have only started having and enforcing anti harassment policies in the last several years.  I say give it some time and see if it works.


----------



## dave2008

Elf Witch said:


> We don't know if it is working well because most cons have only started having and enforcing anti harassment policies in the last several years.  I say give it some time and see if it works.




Good point.  Still a good idea to have a plan B, just encase the result of plan A aren't as dramatic as we like.


----------



## Quickleaf

It's a shame she experienced so much harassment. I think there's a lot of value in sharing these sorts of anecdotal experiences and holding our fellow gamers to a standard of human decency.

My experience with gamers has mostly been positive and discrimination-free. Generally, my experience matches the _American Clinical Journal of Hypnosis_ study's finding that gamers are generally more empathic than the average.

Geek and Sundry writing about the study
PubMed link to the study


----------



## Elf Witch

dave2008 said:


> Good point.  Still a good idea to have a plan B, just encase the result of plan A aren't as dramatic as we like.




It does not hurt to talk about what to do if these don't work and I am sure con organizers have discussed it. I have seen a change from looking the other way especially if the person was famous or a big name fan to saying no we won't look the other way anymore. That right there is a huge step in my book.


----------



## dave2008

Elf Witch said:


> It does not hurt to talk about what to do if these don't work and I am sure con organizers have discussed it. I have seen a change from looking the other way especially if the person was famous or a big name fan to saying no we won't look the other way anymore. That right there is a huge step in my book.




Agreed - that is improvement.


----------



## tuxedoraptor

it kinda sickens me that this stuff actually happens, im seventeen and I have one major ground rule at my table: Respect eachother. The fact that a group of adults cannot understand that is absurd and disgusting! How on earth could a group of men who probably were bullied earlier in life inflict this on someone is beyond me (I actually know why but its not really relevant). If any of this happened at my table, the person in question would be ejected from the game and all of the gaming stores in my area.


----------



## Barachiel

First of all, the problem is NOT just the "fringe" gamers as I've read early in this forum. 

The biggest problem is OTHERS not doing anything about it. Either because it's "none of their business" or whatever excuse is laid out. 

I can get into many other things, but I simply want to make clear that if you want the gaming community to be the inclusive setting you believe it to be, you need to both be aware of how exclusive it currently is AND do something, anything, about it when you notice it isn't. Or when someone outside your perspective, such as a POC or woman if you're white and/or male, is telling you THEIR experience and to actually listen instead of looking for way to dismiss or redirect so you can feel less...guilty or whatever.

One thing I noticed in the article:

"In his testimony and in an interview, Tackaberry disputed much of Garland's version of events, saying she was rarely alone in the store with the customer and she complained only once about the harassment. She was ultimately fired for insubordination." 

So she complained...about ONE customer. With no official history of her doing anything like this before, which would prove credence to her actually telling the truth...and NOTHING was done? She gets fired instead? By stating that, he just incriminated himself entirely.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

I am not sure why people think innocent unless proven guilty applies to a harassment policy at a con.  That standard is for criminal cases in the USA and many other countries.  It is not the requirement in a workplace for an employer to take action.

In general, you only need to have a reasonable basis for your actions to do something like throw someone out of a convention.

I have been gaming forever and I checked with my daughters (cosplayers and gamers) and one said that she has not had what is in the article directed at her but some friends have and the other has had similar but not as many or as severe experinces.

Us "not all men" and "not all gamers" need to do a better job policing bad behavior out of our hobby.

And if you are running a private game on private property, with a group of consenting adults, then do whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Zardnaar

Things like rape should be dealt with off camera if at all. Even as a teenager around half the group was female and we never "raped" them or had NPCs do it. And that was at the age of 15-18 20 years ago.

Come to thnk of it physical violence was a possibility back then and some people, did get punched for various things. Part of the social contract be a big enough jack ass and you might actually get hit. Tended to keep things polite. From memory one gamer got hit in the head for being a jackass and another one got 2 dead arms and legs (where you get punched in the muscles on arms and the legs).  Don't insult the GMs sister and her friends playing the game lol.


----------



## Fergurg

Myrdin Potter said:


> I am not sure why people think innocent unless proven guilty applies to a harassment policy at a con.  That standard is for criminal cases in the USA and many other countries.  It is not the requirement in a workplace for an employer to take action.
> 
> In general, you only need to have a reasonable basis for your actions to do something like throw someone out of a convention.
> <snipped the rest>




I am not aware of anyone calling for the applying of criminal case standards of beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence is acceptable. However, there are people openly advocating, in this very thread, for the idea that "The accusation is the evidence" should be the standard and multiple people here have said that they are OK with innocent people being kicked out on the basis of one accusation.

And I'll address this part now - people justify this by stating that since the only thing happening is they get kicked out of one place one time, that it is a small price to pay. They forget - or are obfuscating - that people travel for conventions, and more importantly, that is not the only thing that is being discussed. There is talk of having people arrested, and making a system where people are tracked. So, no, "She said you harassed her, so you have to be escorted out, even if you didn't do it" is not the end of it.

Someone


----------



## Tranquilis

"...there are serious issues within our community..."

i don't consider myself a part of some collective, gaming community any more than I would consider myself a member of a Budweiser community if I drank beer. I come to Enworld for game news, but lately I get lectures instead. 

I'm an individual, and I enjoy gaming. No one here represents me or speaks for me but myself. 

These social justice articles are getting too heavy-handed for me. One can't go anywhere (physically or digitally) these days without being hit with an agenda - and, yes, this article feels agenda-driven, especially considering the ones that have come before it.

I find the acts enumerated in the article disgusting, but the perps who did those things are to blame. I'm not going to accept that I should reflect and reevaluate myself because of those morons - and I'll continue to be independent from any self-declared "gaming/geek/nerd community", thank you very much.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Fergurg said:


> I am not aware of anyone calling for the applying of criminal case standards of beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence is acceptable. However, there are people openly advocating, in this very thread, for the idea that "The accusation is the evidence" should be the standard and multiple people here have said that they are OK with innocent people being kicked out on the basis of one accusation.
> 
> And I'll address this part now - people justify this by stating that since the only thing happening is they get kicked out of one place one time, that it is a small price to pay. They forget - or are obfuscating - that people travel for conventions, and more importantly, that is not the only thing that is being discussed. There is talk of having people arrested, and making a system where people are tracked. So, no, "She said you harassed her, so you have to be escorted out, even if you didn't do it" is not the end of it.
> 
> Someone




There is absolutely no basis in law or common practice for innocent until proven guilty as a standard here.  If the complaint results in an arrest, then it applies.  The employer or con organizer can fire or remove anyone or take any appropriate action with pretty much any reasonable basis.  An accusation is enough if the business thinks it is enough and courts will back them up if sued.  Zero tolerance policies are usually to avoid being sued (card everyone that asks for a drink no matter what apparent age) and probably are not needed, but the zero tolerance for harassment should be the policy and a credible accusation should be acted on, up to and including removing the person accused of harassment at the judgment of the game store or convention.  You probably are on safer legal grounds to do that than to give a warning because if harassment continues after a warning and you could have removed them and did not you may be found liable.

Yes, this is terrible.  It can be abused and I have seen it abused personally in one of the roles for my job.  However that abuse is incredibly rare in my experience and the other side is more common. 

For some reason you are making fair more important than safe regardless of multiple people (and now me included) telling you that we disagree.  Your opinion is your opinion, but cons and game stores are highly likely to disagree with you.


----------



## Tranquilis

AWizardInDallas said:


> Agree entirely. I have started to actively abandon products that insist on injecting politically correct drivel, cultural revision, gender issues, or other modern, revisionist concepts. I abandoned using a rather popular game world in favor or my own for the same reason. I too refuse to walk on egg shells or pander a company's politically correct garbage.





Same here. After a certain company bragged that they had been on the forefront of including "social agendas du jour" in their products before it was cool, I sold every last item I owned of theirs. I wasn't upset the material was in the books (I'm not that oblivious), I was utterly disgusted that they used their "championing" of those causes as a marketing ploy/scheme.


----------



## MadAxe

Tranquilis said:


> "...there are serious issues within our community..."
> 
> i don't consider myself a part of some collective, gaming community any more than I would consider myself a member of a Budweiser community if I drank beer. I come to Enworld for game news, but lately I get lectures instead.
> 
> I'm an individual, and I enjoy gaming. No one here represents me or speaks for me but myself.
> 
> These social justice articles are getting too heavy-handed for me. One can't go anywhere (physically or digitally) these days without being hit with an agenda - and, yes, this article feels agenda-driven, especially considering the ones that have come before it.
> 
> I find the acts enumerated in the article disgusting, but the perps who did those things are to blame. I'm not going to accept that I should reflect and reevaluate myself because of those morons - and I'll continue to be independent from any self-declared "gaming/geek/nerd community", thank you very much.




Why even post then? Do you really think the aim of the article, or the article linked, was to get all white men or gamers in general to blame themselves?

Is this what people think? Isn't it obvious that the aim is for the COMMUNITY at large to recognize a problem and deal with it? No one is expected to accept blame for something they didn't do themselves. There is, however, a sincere request that everyone try and do better if possible and to help in keeping the hobby a safe environment, to call out those who work against that.

It's a call to allow everyone to game and have fun gaming.


----------



## Fergurg

Myrdin Potter said:


> There is absolutely no basis in law or common practice for innocent until proven guilty as a standard here.  If the complaint results in an arrest, then it applies.  The employer or con organizer can fire or remove anyone or take any appropriate action with pretty much any reasonable basis.  An accusation is enough if the business thinks it is enough and courts will back them up if sued.  Zero tolerance policies are usually to avoid being sued (card everyone that asks for a drink no matter what apparent age) and probably are not needed, but the zero tolerance for harassment should be the policy and a credible accusation should be acted on, up to and including removing the person accused of harassment at the judgment of the game store or convention.  You probably are on safer legal grounds to do that than to give a warning because if harassment continues after a warning and you could have removed them and did not you may be found liable.
> 
> Yes, this is terrible.  It can be abused and I have seen it abused personally in one of the roles for my job.  However that abuse is incredibly rare in my experience and the other side is more common.
> 
> For some reason you are making fair more important than safe regardless of multiple people (and now me included) telling you that we disagree.  Your opinion is your opinion, but cons and game stores are highly likely to disagree with you.




As I explained earlier, I was a victim of "The accusation is the evidence" policy, so I am a little more sensitive than many others. Yes, I am arguing fair over safe. That is because taking rights away from groups of people in the name of safety is wrong. Especially when it doesn't have to happen.

A few pages back, someone suggested increased security and cameras. That is a simple approach that solves ALL of the problems. It shows harassment, or lack of harassment. Someone claims she was harassed, the accused gets confronted, and you run the tape. Simple. 

Know who wouldn't like that? Three groups of people - harassers, those who make false accusations, and those who believe that "The accusation is the evidence."

But this really doesn't surprise me, that "The accusation is the evidence" mindset is creeping in more and more. There have been high profile cases in recent years where people demanded a conviction based on the accusation, even after the accusation was proven false. I intend to fight to keep my hobby safe from justice being turned into a game of identity politics.


----------



## Rygar

Is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion,  or is ENWorld now a political site?  I would very much appriciate clarification as I am looking for an RPG news and discussion site,  but the recent chain of articles indicates to me that ENWorld is now more concerned with pushing politics.


----------



## MechaPilot

I see a fair number of posters talking about how they would stand up and object (some of them violently) if they saw sexual harassment or assault going on.  That's a laudable position, but it does make me wonder.  My general experience with people, particularly with gamers (who have themselves often been the subject of bullying and non-sexual harassment, often during their socially formative years), is that there is a kind of "keep your head down," and "don't get involved" mentality intended to keep them from getting into conflicts they could otherwise avoid.

I even spoke to my father about this earlier today, and he said that he would not get involved, and that he probably wouldn't speak up if security asked him about an incident that he saw; which shocked the heck out of me when I heard it.  My father is a good man who taught me the value of the golden rule, and who I've seen help people generously and spontaneously.  But, he just prefers not to get involved in trouble of any kind, and that's been my experience with most people (generally decent, but they don't want to get involved).

Now, I am absolutely not saying that I don't believe the posters who've said they would stand up and object.  I wish I had someone like one of you present when I was harassed and in need of support.  However, I have to wonder which is more representative of gamers: good people who just want to avoid trouble and not get involved, or good people who will actively stand up and object to others being mistreated.


----------



## MadAxe

Rygar said:


> Is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion,  or is ENWorld now a political site?  I would very much appriciate clarification as I am looking for an RPG news and discussion site,  but the recent chain of articles indicates to me that ENWorld is now more concerned with pushing politics.




Is calling out and standing against harassment "politics"?


----------



## Fergurg

Rygar said:


> Is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion,  or is ENWorld now a political site?  I would very much appriciate clarification as I am looking for an RPG news and discussion site,  but the recent chain of articles indicates to me that ENWorld is now more concerned with pushing politics.




This is a political issue that affects gaming, so it doesn't bother me. trust me; I've seen one particular sight that pushes political views to the point that the moderation openly enforces its political leaning.

All things considered, this has been a mostly polite conversation where there are a lot of passions and views. With the exception of someone who referred to me as a rape apologist because I don't support a "The accusation is the evidence" (he's the director of Adamant Games), and someone who called me ... some sort of alligator, I guess - he never explained what he meant and I don't care enough to find out what he's talking about - it's been a vigorous debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Seems that no matter where we stand, we are truly wonderful, pleasant people.


----------



## MadAxe

Fergurg said:


> This is a political issue that affects gaming, so it doesn't bother me. trust me; I've seen one particular sight that pushes political views to the point that the moderation openly enforces its political leaning.
> 
> All things considered, this has been a mostly polite conversation where there are a lot of passions and views. With the exception of someone who referred to me as a rape apologist because I don't support a "The accusation is the evidence" (he's the director of Adamant Games), and someone who called me ... some sort of alligator, I guess - he never explained what he meant and I don't care enough to find out what he's talking about - it's been a vigorous debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
> 
> Seems that no matter where we stand, we are truly wonderful, pleasant people.




a big ol LOL @ Ferg pretending to not know what gamergate is. Epic trolling.


----------



## Fergurg

Don't bother responding to me, MadAxe; I blocked you. Whatever you have to say, I'm sure it is pointless.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Tranquilis said:


> One can't go anywhere (physically or digitally) these days without being hit with an agenda - and, yes, this article feels agenda-driven, especially considering the ones that have come before it.




Well said. It's gotten to where it's impossible to just to exist and be oneself (while of course being decent and compassionate) without sad and demented shaming and guilt tactics being employed to attempt control, which the actual goal. This to me is the ultimate thrust of the article: to illicit shame and guilt from the 99% who behave just fine from the bad behavior of the 1%.

It also amazes me the number of people here that believe in the totalitarian notion of guilty until proven innocent, which of course opens the door to accusatory abuse. Player A doesn’t like Player B's hair gel today so accuses him of harassment. I'd rather walk under the constant scruty of security cameras at an event than trust the clearly untrustworthy masses to be honest and fair under a flawed policy. Cameras are so far the most effective solution offered. It worked in the case of Michelle Fields.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Fergurg said:


> Don't bother responding to me, MadAxe; I blocked you. Whatever you have to say, I'm sure it is pointless.



Good for you. I made the same decision. Some people just can't be taught how to discuss logically and intelligently without malice. Funny how rude little trolls are the first to sling meaningless snot.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Arnwolf

If I was a cynical activist, which I am not, I would start going to some of these events and accusing women of harassment, since no evidence is needed except someone is making you feel uncomfortable.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Arnwolf said:


> If I was a cynical activist, which I am not, I would start going to some of these events and accusing women of harassment, since no evidence is needed except someone is making you feel uncomfortable.



Precisely and this does occur in activist circles too. I would never attend an event adhering to such a policy.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> I think cameras are a great start, its a cheap and effective way to catch some of the complaints.  I also think an even more important step would be to push the idea that its important to report incidents you see, even if they didn't happen to you.  I don't think its fair to take action on a single report, however if multiple people are backing it up then its much easier to take it serious and actually take action.




I'm not sure how cheap it would be.  For cameras to be effective, you'd probably need a fair number of them.  I've never been to a con, but I have been around a few crowds before, and I have worked in retail and other occupations where I've seen how security cameras work in practice.

I'm not sure of what the proper number of cameras per sq foot of floor space would be, especially since you might need multiple angles to avoid the cameras' view being obstructed by people passing between the camera and the site of a reported incident.  I'm also sure that the cameras themselves, the installation of the cameras, and the software to run them and the hardware to store the footage would probably be a significant investment, at least initially.

I would also propose that a con maintain the camera footage for at least 30 days after the con has concluded (60 or 90 days would probably be preferable), and to make sure that people know the footage is retained for that long.  That gives people who have been assaulted but who were hesitant to report at the time it happened (because of embarrassment, or shame, or what-have-you) an opportunity to take the assault to the police, and to show proof of their claim.


----------



## ehren37

GMSkarka said:


> If people "constantly make claims against you", perhaps one should ask what it is it about one's own behavior which is leading to that happening.  These things don't happen in a vacuum, y'know.  There's not some secret cabal of Cootie-Bearing-Wimmens that decided "let's all falsely accuse this guy at every con he's at!"
> 
> If you "constantly" smell smoke, it might behoove you to _just maybe_ consider that fire might be the possible source.




I'm reminded of the excellent Justified quote, paraphrased to make it grandma friendly.

"You run into a butthole in the morning, you ran into a butthole; you run into buttholes all day, you're the butthole."


----------



## I'm A Banana

Rygar said:


> Is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion,  or is ENWorld now a political site?  I would very much appriciate clarification as I am looking for an RPG news and discussion site,  but the recent chain of articles indicates to me that ENWorld is now more concerned with pushing politics.






			
				Tranquilis said:
			
		

> These social justice articles are getting too heavy-handed for me. One can't go anywhere (physically or digitally) these days without being hit with an agenda - and, yes, this article feels agenda-driven, especially considering the ones that have come before it.




This keeps being called "political."

But...what, exactly, is political about "Harassment at cons is bad and we should do what we can to minimize it?"

Where's the point of disagreement there? It seems absurd to me that there would be some cabal of pro-harassment people out there running for office who think there should be MORE harassment at cons and that harassment at cons should be encouraged and enabled wherever possible. It's not like there's any real disagreement about that. 

There's an "agenda" that sets out to minimize sexual harassment, but, again, I don't think there's any real counter to that agenda. Nobody's saying we should have MORE sexual harassment or that sexual harassment is FINE. 

If this is seen as political or having an agenda, than what's the opposing/reactionary party's line? What's the counterpoint? What's the "pro-Harassment" platform? 

I mostly see people people just saying it's less bad for someone to be harassed than for someone to be tossed out of a convention unfairly. That's not a position that seems political at all - it's not like there's a 2016 presidential candidate who is making "convention justice" a cornerstone of their stump speech or something. It only seems to be a position that can't hold up to much scrutiny - the latter seems to be mostly a bogeyman that doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, would suck less than sexual harassment (though it would suck for that one person!).


----------



## ehren37

Arnwolf said:


> If I was a cynical activist, which I am not, I would start going to some of these events and accusing women of harassment, since no evidence is needed except someone is making you feel uncomfortable.




The Alamo Drafthouse ejects people for talking during movies. You get a warning and are then kicked out, with no refund. They dont require taped evidence, they take their customers at their word. Because the chance some random person is going to accuse some other random person of talking during a movie is so friggin low its ridiculous.  

And it's ranked one of the best theaters in the country. And that's just talking in a movie theater, not something actually serious like sexual harassment/assault. 

So if a Con implements a policy that scares off the MRA's and social justice villains for fear of false accusations, I cant wait.


----------



## I'm A Banana

ehren37 said:


> The Alamo Drafthouse ejects people for talking during movies. You get a warning and are then kicked out, with no refund. They dont require taped evidence, they take their customers at their word. Because the chance some random person is going to accuse some other random person of talking during a movie is so friggin low its ridiculous.
> 
> And it's ranked one of the best theaters in the country. And that's just talking in a movie theater, not something actually serious like sexual harassment/assault.




As a matter of policy, it seems to be a good one. I'd have problem with it as a matter of *law*, what with the prison and the punishment and such, but for Theater Owner Theresa or Con Organizer Karim or whatever, it seems smart. Any fear of being targeted for something you didn't do is looking to be overblown - the actual risk seems to be so minimal as to be invisible (or nearly so). Maybe something about the elective environment (ie, no one's MAKING you show up there, and if you do show up, it's to play games, not to ruin everyone else's fun) helps curb it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

One problem is people can unknowingly hurt other people quite badly.  I like many gamers felt harassed and abused in high school.  But looking back, my gaming group, by virtue of having the biggest and strongest, smartest and most sarcastic people were terrible bullies to the other gamers.  It's terrible.  And I had no idea.

I'm sure when we are talking about the low level harassment, many of the accused may just not be looking at this from the right perspective to see the harm.  And most of the low-level stuff gains the alleged harasser so little, that the hope is simple awareness could wake someone up.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> Well said. It's gotten to where it's impossible to just to exist and be oneself (while of course being decent and compassionate) without sad and demented shaming and guilt tactics being employed to attempt control, which the actual goal. This to me is the ultimate thrust of the article: to illicit shame and guilt from the 99% who behave just fine from the bad behavior of the 1%.




It's actually kind of horrifying that you see articles like this discussing individuals who have experienced awful things, and your mind immediately leaps to, "They're trying to control us!" That says an incredible amount about the sort of person you are and how you view the world around you. No one is trying to control you. No one is trying to shame you. All that anyone is trying to do is to ask you to help improve things, and your response is to essentially give them the middle finger?

When people write articles like this asking you to exert peer pressure to make the community more welcoming and less hostile, antagonistic, cynical, and paranoid, they mean doing exactly what I'm about to do right now to you: Please, stop acting in the way you are acting. It is harmful, it threatens to make things _worse_, and it's the kind of behavior that drags the entire community down. This isn't me trying to control you, or to control your actions. It's me asking you to step the hell up.



> It also amazes me the number of people here that believe in the  totalitarian notion of guilty until proven innocent, which of course  opens the door to accusatory abuse. Player A doesn’t like Player B's  hair gel today so accuses him of harassment.




_*No one here believes in "the totalitarian notion of guilty until proven innocent".*_ That's a mischaracterization of the people arguing with you, and if you're intellectually honest that will be _*the last*_ we hear of it from you. We aren't a court of law. We aren't in a position to punish anyone. We aren't in a position to pass judgment. We aren't in a position to investigate anything to a point of reasonable certainty. This isn't about deciding guilt, this isn't about proving innocence. This is about dealing with an immediate problem in a mature way. As others have pointed out, _*this is how most law enforcement already operates in the moment.*_ It is accepted as a best practice, and it's absurd that you would object to it.

I want to hear you say, "I understand your position now, and I won't deliberately mischaracterize you in the future."


----------



## Elf Witch

Rygar said:


> Is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion,  or is ENWorld now a political site?  I would very much appriciate clarification as I am looking for an RPG news and discussion site,  but the recent chain of articles indicates to me that ENWorld is now more concerned with pushing politics.




So discussing bullying and harassment in gaming is a political issue now? 

There are two threads about this out of many. So why do you feel the need to come on to whine about it instead of just ignoring it and reading the threads that are of interest to you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> I'm not sure how cheap it would be.  For cameras to be effective, you'd probably need a fair number of them.  I've never been to a con, but I have been around a few crowds before, and I have worked in retail and other occupations where I've seen how security cameras work in practice.
> 
> I'm not sure of what the proper number of cameras per sq foot of floor space would be, especially since you might need multiple angles to avoid the cameras' view being obstructed by people passing between the camera and the site of a reported incident.  I'm also sure that the cameras themselves, the installation of the cameras, and the software to run them and the hardware to store the footage would probably be a significant investment, at least initially.
> 
> I would also propose that a con maintain the camera footage for at least 30 days after the con has concluded (60 or 90 days would probably be preferable), and to make sure that people know the footage is retained for that long.  That gives people who have been assaulted but who were hesitant to report at the time it happened (because of embarrassment, or shame, or what-have-you) an opportunity to take the assault to the police, and to show proof of their claim.



Seems like there's room for a new product in the market: a body cam with a lockable removable drive compartment.*  

Rent the things out for a nominal fee.  At the end of the day, the renter gets a download of all the footage, time-stamped.  But so does the venue's security team.  Any illegal activity caught on camera gets passed on to police.







* Or something similar.  The point is that the cameras capture visual data and is not easily editable by the people without the right key...


----------



## Elf Witch

Arnwolf said:


> If I was a cynical activist, which I am not, I would start going to some of these events and accusing women of harassment, since no evidence is needed except someone is making you feel uncomfortable.




What a load of horse manure. The paranoia of some people is really sad. There is no vast conspiracy to eject innocent men from cons. Most cons who do have anti harassment policies are not going around ejecting people just because someone was made to feel uncomfortable. They are talking to the people involved and usually what happens is they are told to stay away from each other and con security is alerted to keep an eye out. The only people being ejected were caught harassing other con goers. 

Come on don't you think if so many innocent men were being ejected from cons we would be hearing about it on twitter as soon as it happens. 

This is just a pathetic attempt by a certain group of people to try and deny that some gamers and geeks are bullies and harassers and need to be dealt with. 

If you read what people are saying about the harassment it is far more than being made to feel uncomfortable it is being groped, followed and cat called at, being  followed so some creep can get an upskirt picture. Gay/lesbian couples have been harassed, transgender folks have been harassed. POC have been harassed.   And does it really matter if only opens a few times it? We should strive to stop it from happening at all. 

I cannot believe that we even have to defend the idea of anti harassment policies. It is very simple you either believe that it it's wrong to harass people or you  okay with it as long as it does not effect you. 

Fergurg I have all the sympathy in the world for you about what happened but it has twisted your views on this matter. What happened to you in family court was done by someone you knew someone who was angry with you you see this kind of vengeful behavior a lot in family court. 

The harassment that most people are speaking about is happening between strangers there is no personal grudge involved to punish someone as in your case. Believe me con security usually take a much closer view when the people involved know each other because there is always a worry that this might be the fall out of a disagreement.  But when someone claims harassment from a complete stranger it is doubtful that there is a hidden agenda there of revenge.


----------



## Fergurg

I'm A Banana said:


> This keeps being called "political."
> 
> But...what, exactly, is political about "Harassment at cons is bad and we should do what we can to minimize it?"
> 
> Where's the point of disagreement there? It seems absurd to me that there would be some cabal of pro-harassment people out there running for office who think there should be MORE harassment at cons and that harassment at cons should be encouraged and enabled wherever possible. It's not like there's any real disagreement about that.
> 
> There's an "agenda" that sets out to minimize sexual harassment, but, again, I don't think there's any real counter to that agenda. Nobody's saying we should have MORE sexual harassment or that sexual harassment is FINE.
> 
> If this is seen as political or having an agenda, than what's the opposing/reactionary party's line? What's the counterpoint? What's the "pro-Harassment" platform?
> 
> I mostly see people people just saying it's less bad for someone to be harassed than for someone to be tossed out of a convention unfairly. That's not a position that seems political at all - it's not like there's a 2016 presidential candidate who is making "convention justice" a cornerstone of their stump speech or something. It only seems to be a position that can't hold up to much scrutiny - the latter seems to be mostly a bogeyman that doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, would suck less than sexual harassment (though it would suck for that one person!).




The political aspect is over HOW to stop it and whether or not "The accusation is the evidence". You are OK with that standard. I am not. That is where the political divide stands.

And we haven't even gotten into the question of what constitutes harassment. Who defines the standard? And whose perspective matters?

Now for the really cynical part. Let's say you have a strong opinion on a controversial subject. Pick one, it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't like that, and so doesn't like you. In fact, you're the kind of person she wants to see out of the hobby. Should she be able to have an easy way by simply lying about harassment in order to have you removed? For that matter, perhaps she doesn't even have to lie; she can say that simply being around you makes her uncomfortable. People get passionate about their causes.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> The political aspect is over HOW to stop it and whether or not "The accusation is the evidence".




*NO.*

Full stop.

This isn't about "The accusation is the evidence," because _*this isn't about evidence at all*_, and you need to stop acting like it is. Evidence is used to pass judgment, and _no one is in a position to pass judgment, here._ This is about resolving an immediate problem. The evidence isn't important, judging whether something actually occurred or not isn't important, determining whether an incident met an arbitrary standard of "harassment" isn't important. _Stop acting like that's what we're talking about._



> Now for the really cynical part. Let's say you have a strong opinion on a controversial subject. Pick one, it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't like that, and so doesn't like you. In fact, you're the kind of person she wants to see out of the hobby. Should she be able to have an easy way by simply lying about harassment in order to have you removed? For that matter, perhaps she doesn't even have to lie; she can say that simply being around you makes her uncomfortable. People get passionate about their causes.




To be clear, you actually think it's _feasible_ to imagine that someone might one day use this framework to orchestrate a series of false accusations and frame jobs against you for the ultimate purpose of driving you from the hobby entirely, and _that it might actually succeed?_ Is this the world that you feel you live in? This is _real life._ Comical petty RPG supervillains don't actually exist and aren't out to get you. If it becomes clear that someone is deliberately lying about your actions and words, there are plenty of things you can do to address that, and they don't require that you remain at any given gaming event.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> It's actually kind of horrifying that you see articles like this discussing individuals who have experienced awful things, and your mind immediately leaps to, "They're trying to control us!" That says an incredible amount about the sort of person you are and how you view the world around you. No one is trying to control you. No one is trying to shame you. All that anyone is trying to do is to ask you to help improve things, and your response is to essentially give them the middle finger?
> 
> When people write articles like this asking you to exert peer pressure to make the community more welcoming and less hostile, antagonistic, cynical, and paranoid, they mean doing exactly what I'm about to do right now to you: Please, stop acting in the way you are acting. It is harmful, it threatens to make things _worse_, and it's the kind of behavior that drags the entire community down. This isn't me trying to control you, or to control your actions. It's me asking you to step the hell up.
> 
> 
> 
> _*No one here believes in "the totalitarian notion of guilty until proven innocent".*_ That's a mischaracterization of the people arguing with you, and if you're intellectually honest that will be _*the last*_ we hear of it from you. We aren't a court of law. We aren't in a position to punish anyone. We aren't in a position to pass judgment. We aren't in a position to investigate anything to a point of reasonable certainty. This isn't about deciding guilt, this isn't about proving innocence. This is about dealing with an immediate problem in a mature way. As others have pointed out, _*this is how most law enforcement already operates in the moment.*_ It is accepted as a best practice, and it's absurd that you would object to it.
> 
> I want to hear you say, "I understand your position now, and I won't deliberately mischaracterize you in the future."




Actually, the view is *WORSE* that "guilty until proven innocent". It is simply unconcerned with whether or not the person is guilty. The accused is simply expelled from the event (although some who support this would at least be willing to give a refund to the accused). Are you seriously suggesting that expelling someone from an event is not a punitive action?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> Now for the really cynical part. Let's say you have a strong opinion on a controversial subject. Pick one, it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't like that, and so doesn't like you. In fact, you're the kind of person she wants to see out of the hobby. Should she be able to have an easy way by simply lying about harassment in order to have you removed? For that matter, perhaps she doesn't even have to lie; she can say that simply being around you makes her uncomfortable. People get passionate about their causes.




See slander, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress laws.  A person who is proven to be spreading damaging falsehoods can face some nasty repercussions.

Of course, there are again the interacting issues of proof, societal paranoia, or being a member of a relatively disfavored minority.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> *NO.*
> 
> Full stop.
> 
> This isn't about "The accusation is the evidence," because _*this isn't about evidence at all*_, and you need to stop acting like it is. Evidence is used to pass judgment, and _no one is in a position to pass judgment, here._ This is about resolving an immediate problem. The evidence isn't important, judging whether something actually occurred or not isn't important, determining whether an incident met an arbitrary standard of "harassment" isn't important. _Stop acting like that's what we're talking about._
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, you actually think it's _feasible_ to imagine that someone might one day use this framework to orchestrate a series of false accusations and frame jobs against you for the ultimate purpose of driving you from the hobby entirely, and _that it might actually succeed?_ Is this the world that you feel you live in? This is _real life._ Comical petty RPG supervillains don't actually exist and aren't out to get you. If it becomes clear that someone is deliberately lying about your actions and words, there are plenty of things you can do to address that, and they don't require that you remain at any given gaming event.




3 words to prove that you are very wrong: Duke Lacrosse Team.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> Actually, the view is *WORSE* that "guilty until proven innocent".




No, it isn't. You have to take an incredibly warped view of reality to arrive at that belief.



> It is simply unconcerned with whether or not the person is guilty.




That's exactly right. No one is being punished, so arriving at a determination of guilt is unimportant. It's about defusing the situation, that's all.



> The accused is simply expelled from the event (although some who support this would at least be willing to give a refund to the accused). Are you seriously suggesting that expelling someone from an event is not a punitive action?




Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The accused may _feel_ punished, but that isn't why the action was taken. The action was taken to resolve the problem quickly and to allow the event to continue with the least disruption possible. And, if the accused _does_ feel punished, hopefully they will eventually take the requisite thirty seconds to reflect on what happened and to realize that being removed from the event really isn't that big of a deal, that if it was a misunderstanding he will have plenty of opportunities to address that, and that he's free to get on with his life.


----------



## Libramarian

I'm A Banana said:


> Lots of cons have had zero tolerance policies for years now - has that ever actually happened? Is there any evidence that what you fear is real and not just a bogeyman?




Have they? Literally they will throw anyone out no questions asked if they're accused of harassment?

If so, why was this presented as an innovative idea?


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> 3 words to prove that you are very wrong: Duke Lacrosse Team.




So, do you not understand the Duke lacrosse case? Or are you deliberately mischaracterizing it to try and support your personal narrative of choice? Because that case really, _really_ doesn't say the things you want it to say.


----------



## Dannager

Libramarian said:


> Have they? Literally they will throw anyone out no questions asked if they're accused of harassment?




A number of cons have this policy on paper. Every PAX convention, for example, has a zero-tolerance harassment policy. Being reported for harassment triggers a remediation process which includes removal, revocation of badge, and permaban from future PAX events.

In reality, of course, there is some room for discretion, but the policy is there and the shows have continued to operate just fine.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> So, do you not understand the Duke lacrosse case? Or are you deliberately mischaracterizing it to try and support your personal narrative of choice? Because that case really, _really_ doesn't say the things you want it to say.




Actually, I do understand the case. 4 people were falsely accused of rape. The nation went nuts over it. Even after it proven that the 4 did not rape the dancer who accused them (and in fact, one of them wasn't even there), people still wanted their blood. A poll taken by ABC News showed that the majority of black students wanted them to be punished _even if they were innocent_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> 3 words to prove that you are very wrong: Duke Lacrosse Team.




No question that false accusations are terrible.  Lives get ruined, and not just those of the accused.

Tawana Brawley made similar accusations.  Richard Jewel was mistakenly thought to be a terrorist.  People end up in prison, including death row.  Some get lynched.  But in most such cases, those falsities get revealed, and their perpetrators are held accountable.

No system is perfect.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> Actually, I do understand the case. 4 people were falsely accused of rape. The nation went nuts over it. Even after it proven that the 4 did not rape the dancer who accused them (and in fact, one of them wasn't even there), people still wanted their blood. A poll taken by ABC News showed that the majority of black students wanted them to be punished _even if they were innocent_.




What you're conveniently leaving out is that the real problem was a gross miscarriage of _actual justice_ by a rogue prosecutor who railroaded an investigation, lied about findings, and was eventually disbarred for his behavior. There's no question that the case sucked for the falsely accused, but it would have been resolved quickly and (relatively) painlessly had the case been handled properly by the DA.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> A number of cons have this policy on paper. Every PAX convention, for example, has a zero-tolerance harassment policy. Being reported for harassment triggers a remediation process which includes removal, revocation of badge, and permaban from future PAX events.
> 
> In reality, of course, there is some room for discretion, but the policy is there and the shows have continued to operate just fine.




Now this is interesting, because it contradicts what you said earlier. You said earlier that it wasn't punitive nor was it a big deal being falsely accused of harassment. But being permanently banned from future PAX events sounds like a big deal to me. So now, one accusation, _where you admit that it doesn't matter if it is true or not_ has ramifications for more than just one day.

Or is being permabanned still not a big deal?


----------



## Fergurg

Elf Witch said:


> What a load of horse manure. The paranoia of some people is really sad. There is no vast conspiracy to eject innocent men from cons. Most cons who do have anti harassment policies are not going around ejecting people just because someone was made to feel uncomfortable. They are talking to the people involved and usually what happens is they are told to stay away from each other and con security is alerted to keep an eye out. The only people being ejected were caught harassing other con goers.
> <snipped because this is what I want to address>




That is reasonable, but that is not some people are pushing for; they are pushing for a policy that the accused is thrown out, and are actually saying that it shouldn't matter whether or not the accusation is true.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Fergurg said:


> So now, one accusation, _where you admit that it doesn't matter if it is true or not_ has ramifications for more than just one day.




No, there is a whole process.  You are deliberately misreading to make "points".


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Seems like there's room for a new product in the market: a body cam with a lockable removable drive compartment.*
> 
> Rent the things out for a nominal fee.  At the end of the day, the renter gets a download of all the footage, time-stamped.  But so does the venue's security team.  Any illegal activity caught on camera gets passed on to police.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Or something similar.  The point is that the cameras capture visual data and is not easily editable by the people without the right key...




It does seem like there might be a market for that.

That said, if I walked into whatever the reception area of a convention center is (remember, I've never been to a con, so I don't know the details of attending) and they offered to rent something like that to me, I'd leave based on the assumption that the convention is so unsafe that they feel they have to offer such a thing for rental.

By way of contrast, I'd feel safer seeing a desk with a police department presence and signs around the convention center warning that the con is under video surveillance,  and that crimes caught on camera (particularly sexual assaults) will be immediately reported to the police.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Some kind of transient bug is keeping me from seeing anything past pg 30 in this thread right now.  So I'm currently posting blind:

I was going to edit my last post to point out that the Duke case really only got traction after Mike Nifong picked up the standard and ran with it...ignoring a host of ethical considerations for his position- including not turning known exculpatory evidence (including DNA) from the defense.  When the scandal was revealed, Nifong wasn't just fired, he was disbarred.

So while the accused did suffer- and will likely continue to suffer on occasion despite exoneration- certain stigma related to the charges, their accusers didn't escape punishment.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> What you're conveniently leaving out is that the real problem was a gross miscarriage of _actual justice_ by a rogue prosecutor who railroaded an investigation, lied about findings, and was eventually disbarred for his behavior. There's no question that the case sucked for the falsely accused, but it would have been resolved quickly and (relatively) painlessly had the case been handled properly by the DA.




I left it out because it wasn't relevant to my point, which is that people were demanding that the accused be punished even after it was established that they were innocent.


----------



## Fergurg

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, there is a whole process.  You are deliberately misreading to make "points".




No deliberate misreading. I went based on what was said, which is no-tolerance policy and harassment means removed, badge revoked, and permaban from future PAX events. If that is inaccurate, please tell me what the process is.

I've never been to PAX, so I never learned about its policies.

Edit: Going to bed. I'll pick up on this tomorrow, if the internet doesn't break before then.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And I'm back!  (For now, at least.)



MechaPilot said:


> That said, if I walked into whatever the reception area of a convention center is (remember, I've never been to a con, so I don't know the details of attending) and they offered to rent something like that to me, I'd leave based on the assumption that the convention is so unsafe that they feel they have to offer such a thing for rental.



Oooooohhh, you don't market or advertise it as a security thing.  You publicize it as something akin to that thing the Beastie Boys did in 2006, where selected audience members were given video cams to capture the show, and the results were spliced together to create _Awesome; I F*€<|¥% Shot That!_.

Indeed, the use of the footage could _primarily_ serve as an ingredient in producing footage & stills for event/venue publicity or sale, with the unspoken ancillary benefit of increasing security.


----------



## Talley Darkstar

Yeah, I really don't get it.  When I was doing LARP, had epic scenes with female gamers.  I also had epic scenes with male players.  While doing tabletop, my Fiance, who barely knows how to calculate her dice pool has come up with the most epic resolutions.  Male, female, race, different sexual orientation, who cares.  Everyone offers a unique insight into the session.  I've become the great player I am because of people different than myself and without them, who knows where I'd be.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> I want to hear you say, "I understand your position now, and I won't deliberately mischaracterize you in the future."




No. I'm entitled to my opinion same as you and will not be told what you wish me to say or think. Precisely what I just objected to. Control.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> *Again*, you're more likely to avoid future conflict by removing the accused than the accuser.




First, under a policy like this, citation please.

Also, what happens when the person being accused also makes an accusation against the accuser?  I guess you gotta send them both home.  And with a policy like that, that will happen.  Even with legit claims of harassment, the harasser will claim, just to be an a-hole, that the person making the claim also harassed them just to get them sent home as well.



ehren37 said:


> I'm reminded of the excellent Justified quote, paraphrased to make it grandma friendly.
> 
> "You run into a butthole in the morning, you ran into a butthole; you run into buttholes all day, you're the butthole."




So, if with the intent of abuse, me and 4 or 5 of my friends take turns accusing you of something at an event clearly you're just the butthole and not us?  If the policy is, boot the accused no matter what and no questions asked, you're asking for abuse.



ehren37 said:


> And it's ranked one of the best theaters in the country. And that's just talking in a movie theater, not something actually serious like sexual harassment/assault.




I think that actually goes against your point.  Look at this thread...  I doubt "talking in a theater" would garner this much discussion/attention/debate.  Theaters have very little interpersonal interaction and don't open the stage up for much abuse.  How many people have you made mad while in a theater?  A convention has infinitely more person to person interactions and opens the door for a lot more disagreement and disagreement.  I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Barachiel

I highly suggest everyone look at these videos. No they do not focus on Anita Sarkeesian, like 10% of it does. You'll see why. 

If you're afraid of actually thinking, thinking about someone other than yourself, thinking about possibilities other than your own reality, then you're the problem. Please watch all 6 for the message and information, if this doesn't change your perspective in even a little better than you're just a lost cause and a danger to any social community, I believe. 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY62dhVThbeegLPpvQlR4CjF


----------



## Maxperson

Dannager said:


> That's exactly right. No one is being punished, so arriving at a determination of guilt is unimportant. It's about defusing the situation, that's all/




Being evicted from a con and being permabanned is a punishment, not simply defusing the situation.  Defusing the situation would be a separation and instruction not go near each other.



> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The accused may _feel_ punished, but that isn't why the action was taken. The action was taken to resolve the problem quickly and to allow the event to continue with the least disruption possible.   And, if the accused _does_ feel punished, hopefully they will eventually take the requisite thirty seconds to reflect on what happened and to realize that being removed from the event really isn't that big of a deal, that if it was a misunderstanding he will have plenty of opportunities to address that, and that he's free to get on with his life.




Then they should remove the accuser as well, who may also feel punished, but that isn't why the action was taken.  The action would be taken to resolve the problem quickly and allow the event to continue with the least possible disruption.  If the accuser does feel punished, hopefully they will eventually take the requisite thirty second to reflect on what happened and come to realize that being removed from the even wasn't really that big of a deal, that if it was real, she will have plenty of opportunities to address that, and that she is free to get on with her life.

Fair is fair.  What's good for the goose is good or the gander.


----------



## Taneras

Barachiel said:


> I highly suggest everyone look at these videos. No they do not focus on Anita Sarkeesian, like 10% of it does. You'll see why.
> 
> If you're afraid of actually thinking, thinking about someone other than yourself, thinking about possibilities other than your own reality, then you're the problem. Please watch all 6 for the message and information, if this doesn't change your perspective in even a little better than you're just a lost cause and a danger to any social community, I believe.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY62dhVThbeegLPpvQlR4CjF




I understand what happened to Anita, and a big bulk of those against her are worse than her.   But what about the constructive criticism aimed at her and her videos?  A non bias video series would include such material.


----------



## Maxperson

Taneras said:


> Also, what happens when the person being accused also makes an accusation against the accuser?  I guess you gotta send them both home.




They should send them both home.  With no proof of whether the accusation is true or false.  It's what police do when called to a house where one person is accusing another of assault.  You get told that they didn't witness it and that if they have to arrest one of you, they will have to arrest both of you.  

I had a situation years ago when I was renting a room in a place.  The landlord was drinking and was pretty crazy as a drunk and tried to hit my foot with a stick, then tried to wrestle me.  Pretty sad considering he was like 30 years older and couldn't have won.  Then he would bang things to keep me from sleeping.  Well, he rented another room out to a couple who witnessed all of this.  Even with witnesses, the cops told me that I would end up going to jail with him if he said I assaulted him and suggested that we just resolve it on our own.

If a the accuser is being evicted for the same length of time as the accused, it will go a long way to prevent a lot of false accusations.  Women will be less inclined to accuse falsely if they have something to lose, and many/most women who were assaulted will feel that the loss of $30 and a day at con is a small cost to have the accuser sent away and get the assault on record.


----------



## Taneras

Maxperson said:


> They should send them both home.  With no proof of whether the accusation is true or false.  It's what police do when called to a house where one person is accusing another of assault.  You get told that they didn't witness it and that if they have to arrest one of you, they will have to arrest both of you.
> 
> I had a situation years ago when I was renting a room in a place.  The landlord was drinking and was pretty crazy as a drunk and tried to hit my foot with a stick, then tried to wrestle me.  Pretty sad considering he was like 30 years older and couldn't have won.  Then he would bang things to keep me from sleeping.  Well, he rented another room out to a couple who witnessed all of this.  Even with witnesses, the cops told me that I would end up going to jail with him if he said I assaulted him and suggested that we just resolve it on our own.
> 
> If a the accuser is being evicted for the same length of time as the accused, it will go a long way to prevent a lot of false accusations.  Women will be less inclined to accuse falsely if they have something to lose, and many/most women who were assaulted will feel that the loss of $30 and a day at con is a small cost to have the accuser sent away and get the assault on record.




I'm just against the "send people home" policy all together, unless something more concrete is shown to back someone's claims.

I think you made a good suggestion, earlier, just separate them.


----------



## Maxperson

Taneras said:


> I'm just against the "send people home" policy all together, unless something more concrete is shown to back someone's claims.
> 
> I think you made a good suggestion, earlier, just separate them.




Yep, but that won't sit well with the people who are for sending men home even if they aren't guilty.  They aren't going to want something as simple as separation.  That's why I suggested the alternative of sending both of them home.


----------



## Cor Azer

Taneras said:


> First, under a policy like this, citation please.




I don't have a citation, but did you read dannyalcatraz's post (I'll include just below this paragraph)? He's clearly seen industry numbers that do support it (although I don't know if those numbers are public).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In the courses I've taken taught by members of the International Association of Venue Managers (formerly International Association of Arena Managers) and the law-enforcement community, they routinely bring up stats about how, why and when they remove the accused, the accuser, or both from a given situation.  Overwhelmingly, unless they believe the accuser will remain in danger or become endangered, the preference is to remove the accused.  Removing both is the next preferred option.
> 
> Whether or not it is provable the accused actually did something, stats tell them that- in most cases- the situation is more likely to de-escalate than if the accuser is removed.  Serial false accusers are vanishingly rare.
> 
> If the accuser is removed, OTOH, those accused who are actually guilty of said offense (and whatever allies they may have) tend to take this as license, and will continue to re-offend.









Taneras said:


> Also, what happens when the person being accused also makes an accusation against the accuser?  I guess you gotta send them both home.  And with a policy like that, that will happen.  Even with legit claims of harassment, the harasser will claim, just to be an a-hole, that the person making the claim also harassed them just to get them sent home as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if with the intent of abuse, me and 4 or 5 of my friends take turns accusing you of something at an event clearly you're just the butthole and not us?  If the policy is, boot the accused no matter what and no questions asked, you're asking for abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that actually goes against your point.  Look at this thread...  I doubt "talking in a theater" would garner this much discussion/attention/debate.  Theaters have very little interpersonal interaction and don't open the stage up for much abuse.  How many people have you made mad while in a theater?  A convention has infinitely more person to person interactions and opens the door for a lot more disagreement and disagreement.  I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.




Well, there's a special hell for those who talk in the theatre, so nobody's going to do that on a whim...


----------



## Cor Azer

A note about costs for cameras - those would likely be borne by the venues not the conventions directly. Convention costs would go up, but likely spread across multiple conventions and events rather than falling on just one or two.

Security personel would be on a per convention basis, but that's a fixed cost rather than an upfront one like cameras. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

Cor Azer said:


> I don't have a citation, but did you read dannyalcatraz's post (I'll include just below this paragraph)? He's clearly seen industry numbers that do support it (although I don't know if those numbers are public).




No I didn't, thanks.  I think my reservation comes from what I've seen come from both sides of this conflict, doxxing, swatting, fabricating claims to get people fired, etc.  I understand this isn't a video game, but I think we can agree that a large portion of table top communities do play video games.  Perhaps in normal circumstances this would work out well, and perhaps it'd work out well right now...  But I just have my doubts considering the current temperature of this conflict.  Again, it very well could work, but based on what I've seen happen over the past 2 or 3 years I just see this as opening up an additional way to abuse someone.


----------



## cmad1977

Fergurg said:


> This is a political issue that affects gaming, so it doesn't bother me. trust me; I've seen one particular sight that pushes political views to the point that the moderation openly enforces its political leaning.




Females being accosted/abused/groped/made to feel uncomfortable in gaming venues is not a political issue. Don't entertain the idea that it is.


----------



## Taneras

cmad1977 said:


> Females being accosted/abused/groped/made to feel uncomfortable in gaming venues is not a political issue. Don't entertain the idea that it is.




It absolutely is.  The confusion will arise because you try and lump in sexual harassment and being made to feel uncomfortable.  Lets say I tell me wife a "kitchen joke" and someone over hears it.  They claim it makes them feel uncomfortable.

And as others have pointed out, this isn't just about females.  Lets say I make a comment about a monster fight "Man that adult red dragon fight was insane."  Someone hears it, and their relative has mental issues, and they claim that feel uncomfortable with me using that language.

Someone grabbed you or told you something overtly sexual/racist/whatever.  Yea that's bad and that's the sort of behavior we need to stop.  But how far does it go?  At a tech convention one guy made a "donger" joke to a friend, a woman over heard it and got the guy fired.  Instances like that, trying to police speech to that extent, will turn into a political discussion.  It already has.


----------



## cmad1977

Taneras said:


> It absolutely is.  The confusion will arise because you try and lump in sexual harassment and being made to feel uncomfortable.  Lets say I tell me wife a "kitchen joke" and someone over hears it.  They claim it makes them feel uncomfortable.
> 
> And as others have pointed out, this isn't just about females.  Lets say I make a comment about a monster fight "Man that adult red dragon fight was insane."  Someone hears it, and their relative has mental issues, and they claim that feel uncomfortable with me using that language.
> 
> Someone grabbed you or told you something overtly sexual/racist/whatever.  Yea that's bad and that's the sort of behavior we need to stop.  But how far does it go?  At a tech convention one guy made a "donger" joke to a friend, a woman over heard it and got the guy fired.  Instances like that, trying to police speech to that extent, will turn into a political discussion.  It already has.




No one said anything about stupid jokes, your scared of shadows.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

cmad1977 said:


> Females being accosted/abused/groped/made to feel uncomfortable in gaming venues is not a political issue. Don't entertain the idea that it is.



Yes, it is. Read the title: White. Male. Terrorist. All very popular political punching bags in social media today. The article is aimed at a race, a skin color, and a gender and levels the generalised accusation, by default, of the group being terrorists, which is overdramatic hyperbole. The discussion itself has simply chosen to downgrade terrorism to harassment. A different article written by a white male pointing out accusatory abuse would immediately receive the usual "racist" label and laughter.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fergurg

cmad1977 said:


> No one said anything about stupid jokes, your scared of shadows.




That was a real incident that really happened. It was at PyCon in 2013. The woman who got the two people fired ended up losing her job over the incident when the situation came to light; she claimed, and I am not making this up, that the 2 men were working with the KKK to get her fired, and she is still proud of her actions.

So the idea that innocent people get caught in a "The accusation is the evidence" policy has been proven true, and the people who promote this policy have acknowledged it and said they don't care.


----------



## cmad1977

AWizardInDallas said:


> Yes, it is. Read the title: White. Male. Terrorist. All very popular political punching bags in social media today. The article is aimed at a race, a skin color, and a gender and levels the generalised accusation, by default, of the group being terrorists, which is overdramatic hyperbole. The discussion itself has simply chosen to downgrade terrorism to harassment. A different article written by a white male pointing out accusatory abuse would immediately receive the usual "racist" label and laughter.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk




Read the article. I don't know why you feel so targeted. I don't. Maybe you've a reason to feel like this is aimed at you personally?


----------



## Fergurg

cmad1977 said:


> Females being accosted/abused/groped/made to feel uncomfortable in gaming venues is not a political issue. Don't entertain the idea that it is.




How to deal with it _is_ a political issue, which is what we are discussing.


----------



## cmad1977

Fergurg said:


> How to deal with it _is_ a political issue, which is what we are discussing.




How to deal with it is a moral/ethical issue. Discussing the 'politics' is a cheap way to avoid recognizing the issue because somehow, some folks feel more hurt by words in a paper than the events the paper is describing. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Fergurg

cmad1977 said:


> Read the article. I don't know why you feel so targeted. I don't. Maybe you've a reason to feel like this is aimed at you personally?




I did read the article. The writer, in addition to claiming so many incidents that are simply not believable (seriously, she asserts that every time she called the police, she was dismissed. And that when she was 13, an entire store chanted "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" at her.), says outright that the entire gaming community is guilty, but especially the men, referring to them as, "cowards at best, terrorists at worst" and stating the exact words, "Gamers are OK with harassment and terrorism, or else they would have stopped it."


----------



## Taneras

cmad1977 said:


> No one said anything about stupid jokes, your scared of shadows.




People have been fired/reprimanded for this exact thing, I even mentioned an example in the post you quoted/responded to.   You're literally denying reality.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

cmad1977 said:


> Read the article. I don't know why you feel so targeted. I don't. Maybe you've a reason to feel like this is aimed at you personally?




I read it. Its nauseating in more ways than one. I'm simply white, male, and now by default a terrorist and that is an unfair and ignorant global characterization of a group of people. I find it unlikely that only white males were involved and find the article itself dubious since it is clearly so targeted.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## cmad1977

Taneras said:


> People have been fired/reprimanded for this exact thing, I even mentioned an example in the post you quoted/responded to.   You're literally denying reality.




And oft times they deserve to be fired/reprimanded. I have no problem with companies canning people who don't behave in a fashion that reflects their principles. It's pretty standard. 

Besides which, I'm sure those people could have done something to prevent themselves from being put in a position to be fired. So really the fault is with the 'victim'. 

Of course, as usual this is a deflection from the real issue.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Guys, this conversation is literally not about us. This conversation is not about hypotheticals that could happen.  It is about horrible things that are happening to when.

The title of the blog post was provocative, but that was because these problems are being ignored. People need to stop worrying about being oppressed as males because the focus isn't on you and start worrying about what is really happening.


----------



## jbear

Arnwolf said:


> And I think me and my group enjoy playing to get away from women.  And I have a feeling we are not a small part of the roleplaying population.
> 
> If you have women playing that need to have everything babied down for them then sure go ahead and do it.  It's your game.  But some really want to let loose and enjoy themselves and not worry about politically correctness with their friends.  We have enough of that in public.




Wow... seriously? So, well done for speaking up and revealing yourself as one of those people who are being described in the article. And well done to the two fellows who felt identified enough with your statement that they xp'd you. I have gone through several pages now of this thread to have read enough. I don't need to read anymore. What surprised me the most (I wasn't really surprised by the purile defenses given in favour of not addressing unacceptable behaviour in a gaming community) was that this particular post was not absolutely nailed by other members of the board. I am not going to waste my life reading any more nonsense, but I will say that people like Arnwolf are the reason I NEVER EVER game with gamers. 

I'm a middle aged white male who absolutely loves table top games and RPGs. But I only ever play with friends who I have introduced personally to the hobby, and as such they carry no social baggage or stigma scars unfortunately related to the hobby. I DM for a group of 5 people. 4 of them are women. One is a man. I have never had to baby anything down for any of them. They are all capable, intelligent, and entertaining roleplayers.

I personally would NEVER go to a gaming convention to play with other gamers, for no other reason than to avoid ever having the misfortune of spending my valuable personal time with someone who thinks like Arnwolf. I don't know what size part of the roleplaying population I represent, but I can only hope that it is one that is growing faster than the group responsible for giving gamers a bad name in general.


----------



## GMSkarka

The number of guys (and funny, they're all guys) stepping forward in this thread to vehemently argue about the "politics" and "control" and "I would make false accusations against women to prove my point" and the like?

You're seeing, in real time, right here, why there's a problem in the gaming community.   They're right here, in the thread.


Oh -- and for the geniuses claiming "I will not attend any convention that has such a policy in place"?   I seriously doubt your posturing and chest-pounding -- because most cons *already have zero-tolerance harassment policies*, and have for quite a while now.   So your problem appears to be people _talking about_ those policies, rather than the policies themselves.  

Thankfully, everybody reading this thread can clearly see, based on your posts, why you've probably got an issue with this topic.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Christopher Helton said:


> People need to stop worrying about being oppressed as males because the focus isn't on you and start worrying about what is really happening.




The article clearly indicates its focus. Its clearly targeted at a specific grouping of people.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> The number of guys (and funny, they're all guys)




Because the article is targeted at males, obviously.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

cmad1977 said:


> And oft times they deserve to be fired/reprimanded. I have no problem with companies canning people who don't behave in a fashion that reflects their principles. It's pretty standard.
> 
> Besides which, I'm sure those people could have done something to prevent themselves from being put in a position to be fired. So really the fault is with the 'victim'.
> 
> Of course, as usual this is a deflection from the real issue.




So you downplayed stupid jokes and implied that it wouldn't cost you your ticket price, but those same jokes are certainly serious enough for you to potentially lose thousands of dollars through being fired, possibly having a bad reputation depending on your position and the community, and very well could have a difficult time finding a new job.

Yea, good job.  Jokes are that serious.  That person/family deserved those weeks/months of struggling financially because of a joke that someone took the wrong way.  Glad you're taking such a strong stance against "uncomfortable feelings".


----------



## Taneras

jbear said:


> Wow... seriously? So, well done for speaking up and revealing yourself as one of those people who are being described in the article.




It's amazing.  In Christopher Helton's article he mentions a group of women who wanted a woman only table top campaign and were harassed because of it...  But when a guy wants to keep his group guys only, he's part of the problem mentioned in the very same article that mentioned the group of women wanting the exact same thing.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> It's amazing.  In Christopher Helton's article he mentions a group of women who wanted a woman only table top campaign and were harassed because of it...  But when a guy wants to keep his group guys only, he's part of the problem mentioned in the very same article that mentioned the group of women wanting the exact same thing.




"Yeah, why isn't there a White History Month?"


----------



## Obryn

I, too, frequently make radical political statements like "people should be nice to each other" and "it's polite to do the dishes when someone else cooks dinner." 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## MadAxe

I agree with Gareth. These guys in this thread are the problem. Maybe they're not harassing, but they are incredibly against even looking at the issue and doing something about it.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Taneras said:


> It's amazing.  In Christopher Helton's article he mentions a group of women who wanted a woman only table top campaign and were harassed because of it...  But when a guy wants to keep his group guys only, he's part of the problem mentioned in the very same article that mentioned the group of women wanting the exact same thing.



+1: Indeed, it's called a double standard, folks.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

MadAxe said:


> I agree with Gareth. These guys in this thread are the problem. Maybe they're not harassing, but they are incredibly against even looking at the issue and doing something about it.




The majority seem to acknowledge the problem, but are debating how best to address it.  I haven't seen anyone in the past 15 pages or so (about when I jumped in), who's acted in the way you've just described.


----------



## MadAxe

The majority acknowledge the problem, there's a few who think the issue is too "political" and focusing too much on the "white male terrorist" title. That's who I'm talking about.


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> "Yeah, why isn't there a White History Month?"




So you agree then, we should treat people differently based off of characteristics that they cannot control (gender, race, age, sexual orientation, etc.).

Women should be allowed to exclude based on gender, but men cannot be allowed to exclude based on gender.

For the record, I don't see an issue with either.  If a group of women want to stay a group of women, more power to them.  If a group of men want to remain a group of men, more power to them too.  Why would you want to force yourself into a group that doesn't want you in it?  I promise you, there are plenty of mixed sex groups that you'll fit in just fine with.  The issue here is the blame game.  When women want to have a woman only group and are harassed because of it people are, rightfully, upset.  However, when men want a men only group they're part of the problem.  That's the issue.  Both, or neither, should be a problem.  I'm in the neither camp.  You seem to be in the sexist (treating each gender differently) camp.  That's not cool.


----------



## Taneras

MadAxe said:


> The majority acknowledge the problem, there's a few who think the issue is too "political" and focusing too much on the "white male terrorist" title. That's who I'm talking about.




I have a sneaky feeling that if there were articles about how females were the problem, that in itself would be seen as evidence of harassment, but because its against men, specifically white men, its glossed over.  The author of the article also seemed to suggest that because white men were mostly responsible for this harassment that all white men should focus less on being labeled a terrorist and more focused on the problem - akin to telling Muslims to focus less on being labeled a terrorist and focus more in fighting terrorism or all black person focus less on being called a thug or gangster and focus more on reducing inner city crime.

I think a lot of people want to go along with this, but that sort of language, unsurprisingly, puts people on the defensive as its very similar to the complaints being discussed in the first place.  Is it impossible to try and address this problem without talking about gender/race/whatever?  Can't we just lump people into good person and bad person groups?  Focus on behavior, not skin pigmentation or genitals.  That seems, at least to me, to be the best way to move forward.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Taneras said:


> The majority seem to acknowledge the problem, but are debating how best to address it.  I haven't seen anyone in the past 15 pages or so (about when I jumped in), who's acted in the way you've just described.



No, not one. Have seen some genuine lack of civility and manners though, that's for sure. No one is advocating "more harassment please!" That would be absurd.

By the way, real terrorism involves blowing people and buildings up, and loping off heads.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Obryn said:


> I, too, frequently make radical political statements like "people should be nice to each other" and "it's polite to do the dishes when someone else cooks dinner."
> 
> Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk



How dare you. 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeanneliza

Taneras said:


> It's amazing.  In Christopher Helton's article he mentions a group of women who wanted a woman only table top campaign and were harassed because of it...  But when a guy wants to keep his group guys only, he's part of the problem mentioned in the very same article that mentioned the group of women wanting the exact same thing.




Here I have to speak up. The woman Christopher cited in his article was me. What isn't said is that at that same convention I offered both an open table, and the woman's only game. What isn't mentioned is that I did so with clearance from the event organizers in advance. What isn't mentioned in the primary purpose of doing so to draw more women into an event that out of 320 seats, this weekend FOUR were taken by women. What isn't mentioned i the idea was to give women an opportunity NONE of them had ever had no matter how long they were in the hobby. What isn't mentioned is the complete twisting of the intent of the game by one community member, while those who silently supported him boycotted the open game, and made a good many women feel so uncomfortable that we will wait now until we can offer the game in private to hold it. So now the only games run by a woman at that event have been cancelled. What isn't mentioned is that I was running a campaign in that setting for SIX male players and not one woman, and the blowback from this has forced me to cancel that. What isn't mentioned is that I have run this several times as one shots for ALL male players, no one complained. What isn't mentioned is that I play in a good many games where I am the ONLY woman player, and there have been times I have questioned to myself if some things occurring were either because of my gender, or because being of my gender I see the values in the games differently? What isn't mentioned is that I have been invited to leave a group where I was the only woman player and the complaints of this one player were the excuse cited. What isn't mentioned is I had already left the group that introduced me to RPG's and VTT's because of bullying, that because of another minority group I belong to, was causing issues for me that they didn't want to hear about, because the bullying was just how the culture was I should "put on my big my girl panties and ignore it." Seriously I am 60 years old, I am not a child who can't see and call a problem based merely in emotion. I don't hate men or have an agenda against men, my grandfathers, father, uncles, brothers, lots of cousins, son in all grandsons ALL men. I have played RPG's online with a VTT for over 2 years now, I have yet to be in a game where more than half the players are women.
Repeatedly I acknowledged that this is a rather default setting simply because it took longer it seems for women to get involved in the hobby in any kind of numbers. I love this hobby, and an article I wrote for ConTessa states it pretty clearly. But after reading what I have seen here, after my second negative experience with online gaming groups ai am seriously considering the advice of some here. Just get out before it costs me any more money, any more health issues, any more mischaracterization of everythign I have said and believed because ONE guy took issue, and guys stick together.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> "Yeah, why isn't there a White History Month?"



Absurd, but having special days or months for a racial demographic actually creates division. We're all genetically identical. There's only one race: human. Now, if some elves were to land in their UFOs...

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> Here I have to speak up. The woman Christopher cited in his article was me. What isn't said is that at that same convention I offered both an open table, and the woman's only game. What isn't mentioned is that I did so with clearance from the event organizers in advance. What isn't mentioned in the primary purpose of doing so to draw more women into an event that out of 320 seats, this weekend FOUR were taken by women. What isn't mentioned i the idea was to give women an opportunity NONE of them had ever had no matter how long they were in the hobby. What isn't mentioned is the complete twisting of the intent of the game by one community member, while those who silently supported him boycotted the open game, and made a good many women feel so uncomfortable that we will wait now until we can offer the game in private to hold it. So now the only games run by a woman at that event have been cancelled. What isn't mentioned is that I was running a campaign in that setting for SIX male players and not one woman, and the blowback from this has forced me to cancel that. What isn't mentioned is that I have run this several times as one shots for ALL male players, no one complained. What isn't mentioned is that I play in a good many games where I am the ONLY woman player, and there have been times I have questioned to myself if some things occurring were either because of my gender, or because being of my gender I see the values in the games differently? What isn't mentioned is that I have been invited to leave a group where I was the only woman player and the complaints of this one player were the excuse cited. What isn't mentioned is I had already left the group that introduced me to RPG's and VTT's because of bullying, that because of another minority group I belong to, was causing issues for me that they didn't want to hear about, because the bullying was just how the culture was I should "put on my big my girl panties and ignore it." Seriously I am 60 years old, I am not a child who can't see and call a problem based merely in emotion. I don't hate men or have an agenda against men, my grandfathers, father, uncles, brothers, lots of cousins, son in all grandsons ALL men. I have played RPG's online with a VTT for over 2 years now, I have yet to be in a game where more than half the players are women.
> Repeatedly I acknowledged that this is a rather default setting simply because it took longer it seems for women to get involved in the hobby in any kind of numbers. I love this hobby, and an article I wrote for ConTessa states it pretty clearly. But after reading what I have seen here, after my second negative experience with online gaming groups ai am seriously considering the advice of some here. Just get out before it costs me any more money, any more health issues, any more mischaracterization of everythign I have said and believed because ONE guy took issue, and guys stick together.




As I mentioned my next post, I have no issue with women only table top groups.  I certainly have an issue with people who want to harass women for wanting to have a woman only table top group.

My point was more aimed at when a group of guys want to do the same thing, they're called, at least by some people, part of the harassment problem.  That's hypocritical.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> So you agree then,




Wow.

I've...

Nope.  I've got nothin'.



			
				AWizardInDallas said:
			
		

> By the way, real terrorism involves blowing people and buildings up, and loping off heads.




The examples you cite are tactics of some terrorists, but that is not the total sum of "real terrorism."  The actual definition is pretty simple:the use of violence and/or intimidation in the pursuit of ideological (political, religious or cultural) aims, by non-state actors.

Given the number of folks in this thread who are decrying any attempt to discuss harassment of women at gaming conventions as "political", you can see that "political" and "cultural" aims are definitely in play here -- and the harassment and assault absolutely fall under "intimidation."


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> I've got nothin'.




I know.


----------



## GMSkarka

AWizardInDallas said:


> Absurd, but having special days or months for a racial demographic actually creates division.




I guess when you're used to being the demographic that everything revolves around, any attention paid to another demographic feels like "division" to you.

That's really sad.   I'm sorry you feel that way.


----------



## GMSkarka

Again, no further comments will do more to clearly demonstrate what kind of guys we're dealing with than just reading their own words.

It's right there, on the screen.

ProTip, guys -- when you hit rock-bottom, _stop digging._


----------



## MadAxe

Women are being harassed out of gaming every single day. Every day. There are stories about it every day. Why is it so hard to believe? Why is it so hard to just say "you know what, this can't happen any longer" instead of worrying about how it makes men look?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> I guess when you're used to being the demographic that everything revolves around, any attention paid to another demographic feels like "division" to you.
> 
> That's really sad.   I'm sorry you feel that way.



Ah, the white guilt card. Good times.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> any attention paid to another demographic feels like "division" to you.




That's not it at all. Specific emphasis on race/gender/sexual orientation is the issue.  Why not just lump all the amazing achievements of those black individuals into their respected history books?

The issue with you, is that you don't enter a conversation where you start off with the assumption that the person you're talking too is being honest and has the best intentions and stick with that until proven otherwise.  You see someone that disagrees, and instead of being right, or simply mistaken, you think that they have an evil intent.  The above line shows just that.  No, its not "any attention", its "attention that focuses on race/gender/whatever".  That creates division.  Just plug them in with normal course material.


----------



## Taneras

MadAxe said:


> Women are being harassed out of gaming every single day. Every day. There are stories about it every day. Why is it so hard to believe? Why is it so hard to just say "you know what, this can't happen any longer" instead of worrying about how it makes men look?




Why do we have to focus on gender when behavior is the real issue?

Stop putting men in one basket and women in the other.  Put well behaving people in one basket and poorly behaving people in the other basket.

Is that such a crazy concept?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> The actual definition is pretty simple:the use of violence and/or intimidation in the pursuit of ideological (political, religious or cultural) aims, by non-state actors.




Did you read your own definition? That's what the article does by singling out a specific demographic. Or are you now saying that all males in the article are an organized ideology, because that's absurd. I withdraw the question because the answer is likely to be just as ludicrous.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Taneras said:


> Why do we have to focus on gender when behavior is the real issue?
> 
> Stop putting men in one basket and women in the other.  Put well behaving people in one basket and poorly behaving people in the other basket.
> 
> Is that such a crazy concept?




Part of it is that statistically, men are far more likely to be the predator than the victim.  This holds true over a broad swath of violent & sexual crimes.

2011 arrest data from the FBI:

Males comprised 98.0% of those arrested for forcible rape
Males comprised 89.0% of those arrested for robbery
Males comprised 85.0% of those arrested for burglary
Males comprised 83.0% of those arrested for arson.
Males comprised 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft.
Males comprised 81.7% of those arrested for stolen property.
Males comprised 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism.
Males comprised 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.
Males comprised 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault


----------



## Jeanneliza

MadAxe said:


> Women are being harassed out of gaming every single day. Every day. There are stories about it every day. Why is it so hard to believe? Why is it so hard to just say "you know what, this can't happen any longer" instead of worrying about how it makes men look?




At a guess from a woman's perspective it is because they are FINE with women being harassed and bullied out of the hobby. The message i Have got over the last few weeks, if you don't THINK like a man, PLAY like a man, take the bullying like a MAN, then you can leave this male oriented hobby/group/table/community.


----------



## Taneras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Part of it is that statistically, men are far more likely to be the predator than the victim.  This holds true over a broad swath of violent & sexual crimes.




The same goes for Muslims and terrorism, and black males between the ages of 15-35 and crime here in America.  Is that a distinction you feel comfortable with?


----------



## MadAxe

Jeanneliza said:


> At a guess from a woman's perspective it is because they are FINE with women being harassed and bullied out of the hobby. The message i Have got over the last few weeks, if you don't THINK like a man, PLAY like a man, take the bullying like a MAN, then you can leave this male oriented hobby/group/table/community.




So sorry this is happening.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> ProTip[/i]




Real pro tip: don't use the relative anonymity of the Internet to abandon all manners and say things to people you've never met and would thus never say in person.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> At a guess from a woman's perspective it is because they are FINE with women being harassed and bullied out of the hobby. The message i Have got over the last few weeks, if you don't THINK like a man, PLAY like a man, take the bullying like a MAN, then you can leave this male oriented hobby/group/table/community.




I'm sorry for your experience, and the experiences of the women you're speaking about.  It's not acceptable and I do think something needs to be done.  I agree, our hobby isn't about excluding groups of people based off characteristics they cannot control (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).  And I'm pretty sure most of the people who are being told that we're part of the problem in this thread feel the same way.  My current group has two women in it and honestly its a bit more enjoyable than my previous all male groups as they bring different personalities and perspectives to the table.

That said, I think we need to focus on behavior and not gender here.  Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of gender.  Lets focus to reduce bad behavior and not focus on genders, races, ages, sexual orientations, or anything of that sort.


----------



## GMSkarka

AWizardInDallas said:


> Real pro tip: don't use the relative anonymity of the Internet to abandon all manners and say things to people you've never met and would thus never say in person.




I assure you, I can and have regularly said the same things to guys like you in person.   For years.

Ask around.

...and I'm posting here under my real name, with my company affiliation in my signature, "A Wizard In Dallas."


----------



## AWizardInDallas

I don't understand why anyone would want to weedle their way into a "tree house rules" or gender-specific game. You'd immediately cause hard feelings and be unwelcome.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Part of it is that statistically, men are far more likely to be the predator than the victim.  This holds true over a broad swath of violent & sexual crimes.
> 
> 2011 arrest data from the FBI:
> 
> Males comprised 98.0% of those arrested for forcible rape
> Males comprised 89.0% of those arrested for robbery
> Males comprised 85.0% of those arrested for burglary
> Males comprised 83.0% of those arrested for arson.
> Males comprised 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft.
> Males comprised 81.7% of those arrested for stolen property.
> Males comprised 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism.
> Males comprised 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.
> Males comprised 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault




Would you be opposed to the same line of reasoning with blacks and crime, Muslims and terrorism, women and child abuse, etc?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> ...and I'm posting here under my real name, with my company affiliation in my signature, "A Wizard In Dallas."




Your parents named you "GM?" Cool.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeanneliza

AWizardInDallas said:


> I don't understand why anyone would want to weedle their way into a "tree house rules" or gender-specific game. You'd immediately cause hard feelings and be unwelcome.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk




Not sure who this is directed at.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Why no "White History Month"?

Because up until there was "Black History Month"- the shortest one of the year, thanks- EVERY month was "White History Month".  Through a goodly swath of the country, the achievements of persons of color were virtually untaught.  American history classes taught MLK, Malcom X, Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver...maybe Fredrick Douglass, and Crispus Attucks, if they were being thorough.  Odds are good you'd find more pages on Nathan Bedford Forrest alone than on any 3 of them.

Any other positives in the black community were told though the lens of the Caucasians who helped along the way.  And oppression beyond slavery, Jim Crow and the bigger conflicts in the civil rights struggle were pretty much ignored completely.


----------



## Christopher Helton

AWizardInDallas said:


> The article clearly indicates its focus. Its clearly targeted at a specific grouping of people.




Yes, a specific group of people who are provably doing bad things. I didn't take offense at it because I'm not doing bad things.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Jeanneliza said:


> Not sure who this is directed at.



Just a general observation based in part on your post, which I didn't want to quote due to its length. In short, you did nothing wrong as far as I can see, but you already know that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeanneliza

AWizardInDallas said:


> Just a general observation based in part on your post, which I didn't want to quote due to its length. In short, you did nothing wrong address far as I can see, but you already know that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk




No actually given the consequences to me and no one lese I don't know that I did nothing wrong. Because if I did nothing wrong why am I the one that feels I now have to leave the community?


----------



## GMSkarka

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why no "White History Month"?




I assure you, they know this.   They don't care.

They're operating under the ridiculous delusion that "we've moved on" and "we don't need to pay attention to race or sex anymore" -- despite constant evidence to the contrary, which they refuse to see.


When I mockingly put that question in quotes, I had hoped that it would actually show them how ridiculous their arguments sounded, by drawing a comparison to an equally-ridiculous assertion.... but of course, they revealed that they actually hold to _that_ assertion, too.   And were prepared to go on about it, further confirming their character.

This thread has become a dumpster-fire -- a greatest-hits collection of the worst elements in our community.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Christopher Helton said:


> Yes, a specific group of people who are provably doing bad things. I didn't take offense at it because I'm not doing bad things.



Guilt by association is precisely an objection.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Helton

AWizardInDallas said:


> Guilt by association is precisely an objection.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, funny


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Taneras said:


> The same goes for Muslims and terrorism, and black males between the ages of 15-35 and crime here in America.  Is that a distinction you feel comfortable with?




Well, we know for a fact that the perception that Muslims carry out more terrorism in the USA is the current narrative, but it is false.  According to the FBI, the real terrorists in the USA are...radical right-wing white males.  Muslims account for @6% of terror arrests- fewer than Jewish terrorists.  They're just in higher profile news stories.*
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...0-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

(FWIW, similar stats for Europe peg the percentage of Islamic terror attacks over the same period at @ 1%- again, they're higher-profile, but visibility isn't the whole story.)

And when you look at the numbers, there IS an overrepresentation of young black males in crime stats.  No question.  That doesn't mean that games aren't being played (pundits conflating "murders" with "homicides", for instance) and that all the data analyzing the reasons for that have reached any conclusions as to why.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

Newsweek, Time and others note that- since 2002- right-wing whites have carried out more plots and racked up more kills on US soil than radical Islamic terrorists.  Going back to 1980, you see the only reason Islamic terrorists are even in the picture as far as fatalities go is 9/11 itself.

OTOH, the arrest rates for males in general tracks pretty well with their conviction rates.  It isn't like a large or even statistically significant percentage of men are getting arrested and then released, only to find out the real perp was a woman.








* note- the article includes a chart which erroneously labels the white terrorists as "left" wing as opposed to "right".  We know this is erroneous by checking the data relied upon for the chart's creation, which talks about the KKK, white supremacists, etc.- hardly "lefties".  IOW, the nomenclature is wrong, but not the percentages.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Jeanneliza said:


> No actually given the consequences to me and no one lese I don't know that I did nothing wrong. Because if I did nothing wrong why am I the one that feels I now have to leave the community?



You did nothing wrong, if it helps. I kinda feel like I have to go too because I'm in the article's  targeted demographic and guilt by association seems pretty popular. I also don't like the political correctness injection into products either, which makes it worse.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Christopher Helton said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, funny



I don't get the joke, but whatever...

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> This thread has become a dumpster-fire -- a greatest-hits collection of the worst elements in our community.




Yeah, clearly hopeless to point out the prevalent fallacious reasoning at this point. Yeah, I'm gonna go work on my game world now. 



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Helton

AWizardInDallas said:


> You did nothing wrong, if it helps. I kinda feel like I have to go too because I'm in the article's  targeted demographic and guilt by association seems pretty popular. I also don't like the political correctness injection into products either, which makes it worse.




Your "feels" are the same as her being kicked out? LOL Have you considered a career in standup?


----------



## Obryn

GMSkarka said:


> I assure you, they know this.   They don't care.
> 
> They're operating under the ridiculous delusion that "we've moved on" and "we don't need to pay attention to race or sex anymore" -- despite constant evidence to the contrary, which they refuse to see.
> 
> 
> When I mockingly put that question in quotes, I had hoped that it would actually show them how ridiculous their arguments sounded, by drawing a comparison to an equally-ridiculous assertion.... but of course, they revealed that they actually hold to _that_ assertion, too.   And were prepared to go on about it, further confirming their character.
> 
> This thread has become a dumpster-fire -- a greatest-hits collection of the worst elements in our community.



Oh yeah. America is completely merit-based now, didn't you get the memo? There are certainly no lingering effects of sexism or racism. Everything is totally equal, and white guys just happen to be better at most of the important stuff in America purely though gumption, hard work, and and a can-do attitude.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Christopher Helton said:


> Your "feels" are the same as her being kicked out? LOL Have you considered a career in standup?



No equal signs in anything I said. I made no comparison. I'll ignore your rude snark.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Helton

AWizardInDallas said:


> No equal signs in anything I said. I made no comparison. I'll ignore your rude snark.




HAHAHAHA


----------



## Sigtyr

Mr. Helton, what can I do about this problem that you have brought to attention in your article? What exactly can I do as a white male to help?


----------



## Christopher Helton

Sigtyr said:


> Mr. Helton, what can I do about this problem that you have brought to attention in your article? What exactly can I do as a white male to help?




What anyone can do it help is to be public and say that you are against harassment. Tell your friends it isn't cool. Report it when you see it happening.


----------



## Dannager

Wow. I did not expect to wake up to find that the people intent on preventing anything being done about this had actually revealed themselves to be _even more radicalized_ than before.

At this point, I'm comfortable stating that if I heard statements along these lines at any event I managed or organized, the people in question would be pre-emptively removed from the event. There's no way I could, in good conscience, allow them to attend knowing that they're likely to cause very real problems. Even if they didn't harass anyone themselves, I would not be comfortable allowing them to enable harassment, or lie to defend harassment that did take place.

And I very much doubt I'd be alone on that. I'm sure the people in question aren't so brave that they'd say these sort of things out loud, in front of other actual people, which is both sad and heartening. But I doubt they can keep it bottled up so much as to make it invisible, and it's my hope that as they inevitably reveal themselves they are pushed out of the gaming community. We have more than enough toxic elements without worrying about the misogynistic ones.

By the accounts I'm seeing in this thread, they're starting to realize that most gamers don't want them around.


----------



## Sigtyr

Christopher Helton said:


> What anyone can do it help is to be public and say that you are against harassment. Tell your friends it isn't cool. Report it when you see it happening.




Ok, I am against harassment. I'll tell my friends about it and if if I see anything I'll report it. Thank you for your time in answering my question.


----------



## MechaPilot

Sigtyr said:


> Mr. Helton, what can I do about this problem that you have brought to attention in your article? What exactly can I do as a white male to help?




Some things that were mentioned in the other harassment thread include the following:

1) Don't do it yourself.

2) try to be more alert for harassment/assault that may be occurring around you.

3) when you see harassment/assault, do not tolerate it in your presence.

4) cooperate with security/police when you are asked about any harassment/assault you may have seen.


If you already do these things, then good on you for being an upstanding member of the gaming community.


An additional something that would have prevented my harassment experience is this:

If you're going to run a game where potentially traumatizing things like character rape can happen, make sure every player who joins knows what kind of game they are signing up for beforehand.  Had I known that was a possibility in that game, I never would have agreed to play with that group, and that would have prevented my worst gaming experience, as well as the ensuing questioning of whether I should quit the hobby for good.


----------



## Christopher Helton

"Be the change you want to see."


----------



## Sigtyr

MechaPilot said:


> Some things that were mentioned in the other harassment thread include the following:
> 
> 1) Don't do it yourself.
> 
> 2) try to be more alert for harassment/assault that may be occurring around you.
> 
> 3) when you see harassment/assault, do not tolerate it in your presence.
> 
> 4) cooperate with security/police when you are asked about any harassment/assault you may have seen.
> 
> 
> If you already do these things, then good on you for being an upstanding member of the gaming community.
> 
> 
> An additional something that would have prevented my harassment experience is this:
> 
> If you're going to run a game where potentially traumatizing things like character rape can happen, make sure every player who joins knows what kind of game they are signing up for beforehand.  Had I known that was a possibility in that game, I never would have agreed to play with that group, and that would have prevented my worst gaming experience, as well as the ensuing questioning of whether I should quit the hobby for good.




Thank you MechaPilot for the info, I'll be sure to do my part in helping to stop harassment when I see it.


----------



## Dire Bare

jbear said:


> I'm a middle aged white male who absolutely loves table top games and RPGs. But I only ever play with friends who I have introduced personally to the hobby, and as such they carry no social baggage or stigma scars unfortunately related to the hobby. I DM for a group of 5 people. 4 of them are women. One is a man. I have never had to baby anything down for any of them. They are all capable, intelligent, and entertaining roleplayers.
> 
> I personally would NEVER go to a gaming convention to play with other gamers, for no other reason than to avoid ever having the misfortune of spending my valuable personal time with someone who thinks like Arnwolf. I don't know what size part of the roleplaying population I represent, but I can only hope that it is one that is growing faster than the group responsible for giving gamers a bad name in general.






Jeanneliza said:


> But after reading what I have seen here, after my second negative experience with online gaming groups ai am seriously considering the advice of some here. Just get out before it costs me any more money, any more health issues, any more mischaracterization of everythign I have said and believed because ONE guy took issue, and guys stick together.




I'm a dude in his mid-40's, and I rarely go to cons, and when I do, I rarely do gaming events for similar reasons as Jbear. I also rarely play in the available spaces at my local FLGS, and I'm very wary of joining gaming groups where I don't already know most of the folks involved. As a result, I don't play as often as others here in the ENWorld community, which is a bummer, but I've made my peace with it.

When finding safe environments to enjoy your hobby is WORK, and you've been burned time over time dealing with harassment and bad behavior, it's no wonder than many folks, mostly women, have abandoned our hobby despite loving RPGs.

But a sea-change in demographics and attitudes are happening right now, and there are safe environments out there for you to play. More and more women are joining the hobby, more and more minorities, more and more LGBQT, and more and more "progressive" white dudes (who are not cool with harassment of any kind). I strongly believe that most tabletop gamers are wonderful people who are not discriminatory or harassing, and don't put up with such behavior when they see it.

Of course, we still have the problems. The "boys-only club" mentality of some guys, the refusal to acknowledge the harassing behavior that all women in the hobby put up with as their "ticket" in. And these "sad puppy gamergaters", although they are a minority of us, are becoming louder and more shrill as they feel threatened by this change and the loss of their "boys only club" to a more egalitarian hobby. They are the dinosaurs, they are headed for extinction, and they know it.

If any individual leaves the hobby (or turtles up with a small group of trusted friends) because they have just become tired of combating the harassment in what is supposed to be a leisure activity, I totally understand. But I do hope you come to see that despite the bad actors, there are a lot of great people in this hobby who make a wonderful experience to game with. It might be worth sticking it out!

I wrestle with leaving the hobby versus working harder at finding some safe gaming spaces all the time. In Boise, where I live, there are currently three major gaming stores in the "Treasure Valley" (a fourth just opened, but I haven't visited yet). Of the two closest to me, one is staffed by very nice folks and most of the folks gaming there are cool too . . . . BUT, the few rude, bad actors that do frequent the play area are never asked to leave or curb their behavior, so consequently, I don't play there anymore and don't spend any money there. The other store close to me has (relatively) recently opened a new location with a huge, open, airy gaming space . . . and as of yet I have encountered no harassing or other rude, bad behavior. The staff seems proactive in creating a great store and a safe environment for gaming. So, I am starting to game there more often, and spend more money there. But I remain wary, as I've seen so much bad behavior in my time in this hobby, I have this fear the newer store isn't any better, I just haven't seen the dark underbelly yet.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Dire Bare said:


> Of course, we still have the problems. The "boys-only club" mentality of some guys, the refusal to acknowledge the harassing behavior that all women in the hobby put up with as their "ticket" in. And these "sad puppy gamergaters", although they are a minority of us, are becoming louder and more shrill as they feel threatened by this change and the loss of their "boys only club" to a more egalitarian hobby. They are the dinosaurs, they are headed for extinction, and they know it.




Like I said in my post, my first DM (back in 1979) was a woman. With a couple of exceptions over the 35+ years that I've been gaming, all of the groups that I have been a part of have had women (a lot of them were half or more). I am always amazed when I find all-male groups, and I wonder why anyone would want to segregate themselves?


----------



## Libramarian

Christopher Helton said:


> What anyone can do it help is to be public and say that you are against harassment. Tell your friends it isn't cool. Report it when you see it happening.




Oh jeez. Is this an after school special?

Here I'll try.

Harassment is totally not cool man!

How many gropings did I prevent?

If you have no idea what to do and you're just writing to raise awareness, just say that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I don't know all the reasons why, but I didn't see a single female player* in a group I was in until @1992- 15 years after I got into the hobby.  And it wasn't until shortly before 3.5Ed was supplanted by 4Ed that I DMed for any for an appreciable length of time.

That group was also the first I'd DMed for someone who was out.  Damn if he wasn't one of the most fun guys at my table..._ever._








* except for one girl who was trying it out because her boyfriend- my best bud- wanted her to.  She only played a few sessions.


----------



## GMSkarka

Libramarian said:


> Oh jeez. Is this an after school special?




Why are you so dismissive?

I mean, really -- if you think this is beneath your "give a damn" threshold, why bother to comment, if not to signal that you hold the entire topic in derision?


----------



## Christopher Helton

Libramarian said:


> Oh jeez. Is this an after school special?




HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Libramarian

Can't see the last page of posts for some reason...



GMSkarka said:


> Why are you so dismissive?
> 
> I mean, really -- if you think this is beneath your "give a damn" threshold, why bother to comment, if not to signal that you hold the entire topic in derision?



That wasn't my only comment in the thread -- remember earlier I said your idea of a zero discretion harassment policy was dumb and you appear to have a superiority complex over other gamers.

I'm not dismissive of the harassment of gamers who are women. I just want to take a solution focused approach. I'm tired of the self-castigation and politicizing.

I mean we're talking about harassment here! This shouldn't be a culture war battleground.

I'd like to read an article about venue security by [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], since he actually knows what he's talking about.


----------



## GMSkarka

Libramarian said:


> That wasn't my only comment in the thread -- remember earlier I said your idea of a zero discretion harassment policy was dumb and you appear to have a superiority complex over other gamers.




Yeah, I saw it, with its bizarre statement about nightclubs, which indicated that you've never actually been to one.  (Here's a hint -- the sort of harassment we're talking about?  Happens there, too, even with policies that you claim "embarrass" what you referred to as ugly/sketchy men at the door.)

Every comment you've made in this thread is dismissive -- bemoaning actual solutions as "self-castigation and politicizing."    That's not getting into your weird status obsession about "superiority complexes" and the poor, downtrodden "creepy loser" demographic.

We get it.  You obviously consider yourself part of the socially-awkward, potentially-unwittingly-creepy group.    Easily solution to that, too:  Grow the hell up, and learn how to act in public.   The geek community's days as a refuge from the obligation of having to learn normal adult socialization is over.


----------



## Obryn

Libramarian said:


> Harassment is totally not cool man!



It's weird how much cooler this thread would have been if you'd led with that!



Libramarian said:


> 1) In case the person making the claim has an ulterior motive, like Emily Garland (author of article in the OP). She has a vendetta against Wyrd Miniatures. I know you consider it gauche to actually read up on something before forming an opinion, so you'll have to trust me on this. She attacks Wyrd in her blog post. She includes their phone number and asks people to call and complain to them.



I read it, too?



> 2) These claims themselves turn women away from the hobby! [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] mentioned upthread that she thinks she would enjoy gaming at a con but doesn't want to go because of what she's heard about them. That sucks to the extent that she's been mislead.



Oh goodness. So by warning people they may be going into an unsafe space, you're turning them away? I suppose that's true, much in the same way that a "WARNING HIGH VOLTAGE" sign turns people away from gently caressing electrical transformers.

You're turning the warning into the problem, instead of acknowledging the problem is the problem.



> The agenda of removing sexist content from the game...



Is that the endgame?

----

Also, since I saw it mentioned, if there's a group of guys or gals who want to have a guys' or gals' night, that's fine. People have total liberty over the people they game with or invite into their homes. That's a mutant topic, though, that ultimately has little to do with the public spaces we're talking about here.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Libramarian said:


> I mean we're talking about harassment here! This shouldn't be a culture war battleground.




I hate to break it to people in this thread, but any "culture war" has been fought out and is over. D&D talks openly about inclusiveness in the book. Pathfinder has iconics that are transgender. The world has moved on from the attitudes of the past and is firmly in the 21st century. The genie is out of the bottle, and no matter how many "men" in this thread might want it to be otherwise, and there is no dragging it back in.


----------



## Elf Witch

Fergurg said:


> That is reasonable, but that is not some people are pushing for; they are pushing for a policy that the accused is thrown out, and are actually saying that it shouldn't matter whether or not the accusation is true.




I think you are misunderstanding what people are trying to say here.  I don't think anyone wants to see innocent people punished. And it is not happening if it was it would be all over the internet. Like Isaid I know people who run Worldcons and know they don't want to punish people with draconian measures what they want is to make sure everyone is having a safe and good time. And they do have a policy of kicking out harassers but it is up to the con committee to make that final judgement. It has been my understanding that when it has been used it has been used on people caught stealing and openly harassing other con goers.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Christopher Helton said:


> I hate to break it to people in this thread, but any "culture war" has been fought out and is over.




Dreadfully wrong.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Arnwolf

What's wrong with a "boys only club", there are plenty of "girls only clubs", and the "girls only clubs" are growing.


----------



## MechaPilot

Obryn said:


> Oh goodness. So by warning people they may be going into an unsafe space, you're turning them away? I suppose that's true, much in the same way that a "WARNING HIGH VOLTAGE" sign turns people away from gently caressing electrical transformers.
> 
> You're turning the warning into the problem, instead of acknowledging the problem is the problem.




Yeah, I sort of missed that when I constructed my reply.  The claims/warnings are definitely not the problem.  The warnings simply allow people to make educated choices.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Arnwolf said:


> What's wrong with a "boys only club", there are plenty of "girls only clubs", and the "girls only clubs" are growing.



Nothing at all. However, game systems are starting to insist that we adopt all alterative lifestyles when they have no right or reason to do except pandering to sell more units. I get to decide that, not some next generation nob with a social justice agenda.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## GMSkarka

AWizardInDallas said:


> Dreadfully wrong.




So, if your cohorts haven't already lost, what's the next move then?   Force WOTC to remove the statements on inclusion and gender roles in D&D?   Make Pathfinder promise that all future Iconics will only be moderately-to-morbidly-obese-bearded-guys wearing fedoras?

I mean seriously -- you think this can be turned back at this point?    Tell me, and show your work.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> So, if your cohorts haven't already lost, what's the next move then?   Force WOTC to remove the statements on inclusion and gender roles in D&D?   Make Pathfinder promise that all future Iconics will only be moderately-to-morbidly-obese-bearded-guys wearing fedoras?
> 
> I mean seriously -- you think this can be turned back at this point?    Tell me, and show your work.




No interest in responding to your snark and you quoted the wrong post anyway.


----------



## cmad1977

AWizardInDallas said:


> No interest in responding to your snark and quoted the wrong post anyway.




Hands up guys!! Tone police up in this thread!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MechaPilot

Arnwolf said:


> What's wrong with a "boys only club", there are plenty of "girls only clubs", and the "girls only clubs" are growing.




It depends on what the "______ only club" is relative to other factors.

A boys only club that holds gaming activities is fine.  That would just be akin to a gamer version of the YMCA, or the Boy Scouts.

Making gaming itself into a boys only club (whether by not allowing women into activities or driving them off by harassing them, assaulting them, or making them feel unsafe if they attend those activities) is not acceptable, and it's probably detrimental to the gaming industry in that basically tells women to spend their money elsewhere instead of on gaming products/events.


----------



## GMSkarka

AWizardInDallas said:


> No interest in responding to your snark and you quoted the wrong post anyway.




Not snark -- genuine question.   If you honestly believe that the "culture war" that Helton references is not over & lost, then how so?   What do you see as any possible move for those who share  your apparent beliefs?  How does, to use Helton's phrase, the genie get shoved back into the bottle?


----------



## Taneras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, we know for a fact that the perception that Muslims carry out more terrorism in the USA is the current narrative, but it is false.  According to the FBI, the real terrorists in the USA are...radical right-wing white males.  Muslims account for @6% of terror arrests- fewer than Jewish terrorists.  They're just in higher profile news stories.*
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...0-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619




Looking through the FBI's list I have to wonder how they're defining terrorism.  Some of the charges listed in their report are as minor as "attempted vandalism" and "tree spiking".  You'll have to excuse me, and I'm not trying to minimize property owners who's property has been vandalized or had their trees killed, but I wouldn't label that as terrorism.  At least not in the category serious enough to be in the same conversation as mass shootings and bombings.

Looking world wide:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

I challenge anyone to find a group who has even half of the number of attacks listed in the last 5 years.  Hell, even one fourth of the attacks listed within the last 5 years.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> (FWIW, similar stats for Europe peg the percentage of Islamic terror attacks over the same period at @ 1%- again, they're higher-profile, but visibility isn't the whole story.)




And I'd bet its using the same watered down methods as the FBI.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And when you look at the numbers, there IS an overrepresentation of young black males in crime stats.  No question.  That doesn't mean that games aren't being played (pundits conflating "murders" with "homicides", for instance) and that all the data analyzing the reasons for that have reached any conclusions as to why.
> http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439




The number games work both ways, either to overvalue or devalue depending on what narrative a specific group or person wants to push.  If you dig far enough you can usually find numbers that are reliable enough to paint a picture and you're correct, black males between 15-35 do account for a huge amount of crime.  Reasons and causes aside, people generally don't approve of lumping most blacks into a group, calling them thugs and gangsters, then telling the blacks who get upset at the broad stoke comparisons to focus more on reducing crime instead of getting upset most of your group is being lumped in together.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Newsweek, Time and others note that- since 2002- right-wing whites have carried out more plots and racked up more kills on US soil than radical Islamic terrorists.  Going back to 1980, you see the only reason Islamic terrorists are even in the picture as far as fatalities go is 9/11 itself.




Citation please, because if its anything like the FBI report its very misleading.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, the arrest rates for males in general tracks pretty well with their conviction rates.  It isn't like a large or even statistically significant percentage of men are getting arrested and then released, only to find out the real perp was a woman.




I'm not debating that men are largely behind violent crimes, only that you can extend this generalized trend quite far and include groups that people will try and make exception for (as you just did).  Again, even females aren't immune, being the overwhelmingly vast majority of child abuse offenders.


----------



## Rygar

I'm A Banana said:


> This keeps being called "political."
> 
> But...what, exactly, is political about "Harassment at cons is bad and we should do what we can to minimize it?"
> 
> Where's the point of disagreement there? It seems absurd to me that there would be some cabal of pro-harassment people out there running for office who think there should be MORE harassment at cons and that harassment at cons should be encouraged and enabled wherever possible. It's not like there's any real disagreement about that.
> 
> There's an "agenda" that sets out to minimize sexual harassment, but, again, I don't think there's any real counter to that agenda. Nobody's saying we should have MORE sexual harassment or that sexual harassment is FINE.
> 
> If this is seen as political or having an agenda, than what's the opposing/reactionary party's line? What's the counterpoint? What's the "pro-Harassment" platform?
> 
> I mostly see people people just saying it's less bad for someone to be harassed than for someone to be tossed out of a convention unfairly. That's not a position that seems political at all - it's not like there's a 2016 presidential candidate who is making "convention justice" a cornerstone of their stump speech or something. It only seems to be a position that can't hold up to much scrutiny - the latter seems to be mostly a bogeyman that doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, would suck less than sexual harassment (though it would suck for that one person!).




I'm not sure how you could be confused when the article cited in the text is "Tabletop gaming has a *White Male Terrorist* problem",  and is a Tumblr article,  not an actual piece of journalism or research.  This article has pretty much nothing to do with "Harrasment at cons is bad and we should do what we can to minimize it" and is completely another social justice warrior article,  a purely political piece with 0 actual research and 0 credibility.  In fact,  the utter irony is,  this whole article and the one it links to is racist and sexist in the extreme. If I replace "White Male" with any other race or the opposite sex I'm sure I'll get an insta-ban.  

There's no agenda here to minimize sexual harassment,  if there actually was concern about minimizing sexual harassment then the basis of the article wouldn't be an article sexually harassing half the population and adding in racism to boot.

So I'll ask again,  is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion or is ENWorld a political site that has aligned itself with the social justice warrior party?  I come to this site to read RPG news and RPG discussion,  if this site is going to be about political commentary on gaming then please let me know so I can find a different site to enjoy RPG news and discussion without the very intense drama that the social justice warrior politics invariably brings.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Arnwolf said:


> What's wrong with a "boys only club", there are plenty of "girls only clubs", and the "girls only clubs" are growing.




Obviously you read NOTHING about my experience offering a SINGLE woman's only game.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> Not snark -- genuine question.   If you honestly believe that the "culture war" that Helton references is not over & lost, then how so?   What do you see as any possible move for those who share  your apparent beliefs?  How does, to use Helton's phrase, the genie get shoved back into the bottle?




Your're not even following yourself very well. Below is what you actually asked.



GMSkarka said:


> So, if your cohorts haven't already lost, what's the next move then?   Force WOTC to remove the statements on inclusion and gender roles in D&D?   Make Pathfinder promise that all future Iconics will only be moderately-to-morbidly-obese-bearded-guys wearing fedoras?
> 
> I mean seriously -- you think this can be turned back at this point?    Tell me, and show your work.




Snark. No thanks.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Your parents named you "GM?" Cool.




I think you missed the name in his signature.  The GM is apparently his first and middle initial.


----------



## GMSkarka

AWizardInDallas said:


> Snark. No thanks.




As I suspected.  When asked to defend the indefensible, you can't.   So you posture and refuse.    Cowardly, and not at all unexpected.


----------



## Obryn

Arnwolf said:


> What's wrong with a "boys only club", there are plenty of "girls only clubs", and the "girls only clubs" are growing.



In the sense that you get to decide who you invite over for gaming? Nothing. You'll be the poorer for it, but your house, your rules. 

Public places? Cons? That's the issue. 


AWizardInDallas said:


> Nothing at all. However, game systems are starting to insist that we adopt all alterative lifestyles when they have no right or reason to do except pandering to sell more units. I get to decide that, not some next generation nob with a social justice agenda.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk



I have yet to see an RPG that demands I become gay or transgender. How is a game insisting you adopt any lifestyle at all?

And what does "pandering" mean here?


----------



## Morrus

Didn't I pick the right weekend to go away? As best I can tell, this is 30 pages of people call


----------



## Ace

1st, People these days especially some in gaming many not have the level of social skills that con organizers expect. It it wise to have a basic fair policy for the occasional problem. 

That policy must assume innocent until proven guilty. Just because a "gamer gurrl" says so doesn't make the creepy guy the problem. Facts only. 

When someone is a problem, kick them out. Best policy, talk first if too serious  refund any remaining days and send them packing. 

Make sure everything is in writing upfront and you are in compliance with the law  though less you find said "problem" has a nasty lawyer. 

2nd For people who think that the  culture wars are settled or won, not even. They are just getting started and I suspect that round two will surprise people with the ferocity of its push-back. I'd really prefer if this tiny hobby could stay Sweden or Switzerland myself. It won't, you may not be interested in the culture wars but they are interested in you.

3rd I've gamed with and  around a lot of women, I suspect that while harassment happens occasionally its pretty rare and its more caused by the social awkwardness of a few gamers than malice.

 Most of them time, people tend to be polite around the ladies. 

 When people make mistakes at a con or elsewhere in a public venue don't be too shy to  stop and talk to them, explain the issue. Odds are they'll fix it and they might just appreciate it. 

4th Consider the source of such accusations or this accusation and what axe  they have to grind especially.   Anyone who uses racist  speech as an  as an opener is doing it wrong .If we are going to abide by speech codes than everyone is. Its not Animal Farm here, some animals and genders are not more equal than others. 

5th The idea of this hobby is too have fun and nothing else. Other goals, inclusiveness or diversity or the constant pounding of ideological drums however worthy they may be  often degrade the fun as  much as  alleged  harassment. Don't allow this to happen. 

By all means check bad behaviors but check all behaviors whether harassment or sh*t stirring.  We need a fun placed to play where the   conference attendees can't enjoy themselves without the egg shell walking that makes up "inclusiveness and diversity" 

 Doesn't mean we shouldn't be polite but if an exaggerated code of niceness tales away people's fun so a few can have a safe place, Its not worth it. 

6th And last, for you home game. Don't hesitate to screen people. Its harder at a con but you should do this at home. My own game does. 

Don't be inclusive, be exclusive. It makes for far better gaming experience. 

The hobby  has changed and the days when gamers were pretty much alike is gone. This isn't racial mind you but the Left/Right gap has infected the hobby as it has the culture. Its sad that we are not "all gamers together" any more but not much can be done for that.


A personal opinion,the intensification of the culture wars has not been good for our hobby. Not that many years ago, I could assume pretty much all gamers were alike and I'd had gamed with really ethnically  diverse groups with differing opinions on everything, incompatible religions  and so on.  We were all gamers together 

That's gone  and the level of rancor has increased enough that a lot more screening and refusal is the norm, if only to keep peace at the table. If people cannot be tolerant of speech than they have to be homogeneous. Its sad, I've enjoyed the unique pleasure that actual diversity without the eggshell walking and worrying about bringing offense or someone getting sued or false claims  or any of that. 

This “one weird trick” that brings us together seems like clickbait now and its sad. 

And in case anyone asks, it won't come back till the culture wars end and as Ice T famously rapped “Our war won't end till all wars cease.”


----------



## AWizardInDallas

GMSkarka said:


> As I suspected.  When asked to defend the indefensible, you can't.   So you posture and refuse.    Cowardly, and not at all unexpected.




I don't feed trolls. Discussion terminated due to lack of manners.


----------



## MechaPilot

Libramarian said:


> Oh jeez. Is this an after school special?
> 
> Here I'll try.
> 
> Harassment is totally not cool man!
> 
> How many gropings did I prevent?
> 
> If you have no idea what to do and you're just writing to raise awareness, just say that.




He did also say to report it when you see it.  Which is quite valid.

As for the other part, making sure that the people you sit down to game with know that you won't tolerate harassment/assault could possibly prevent some harassment (or at least make a harasser/assaulter think twice about trying to get away with it while you're around).

Likewise, statements that harassment/assault are unacceptable in print around a convention center could help drive home the point, or at least make people think about it and potentially be more aware of it.


----------



## Taneras

Dire Bare said:


> Of course, we still have the problems. The "boys-only club" mentality of some guy.




Where's the harm in wanting to have an all male, or female, table top campaign?  I don't think this sort of behavior should be demonized.


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> Where's the harm in wanting to have an all male, or female, table top campaign?  I don't think this sort of behavior should be demonized.




I don't think that an all male or all female campaign is what people are talking about when they object to a "boys only club."  I think people are talking about when gaming itself becomes a "_____ only club," regardless of what subset of people the blank is filled in with.


----------



## Christopher Helton

AWizardInDallas said:


> Dreadfully wrong.




HAHAHAHAHA *takes a breath* HAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Obryn said:


> In the sense that you get to decide who you invite over for gaming? Nothing. You'll be the poorer for it, but your house, your rules.
> 
> Public places? Cons? That's the issue.
> 
> I have yet to see an RPG that demands I become gay or transgender. How is a game insisting you adopt any lifestyle at all?
> 
> And what does "pandering" mean here?




I think there's another forum that discusses the issue, so will refrain from discussing it here as it would be off topic.  In any case, I see nothing wrong with an all "[insert demographic]" here group.


----------



## Obryn

Rygar said:


> There's no agenda here to minimize sexual harassment,  if there actually was concern about minimizing sexual harassment then the basis of the article wouldn't be an article sexually harassing half the population and adding in racism to boot.



This article? Written by a guy named Chris? 

I really don't know how this article harasses me, a 40+ year old white male non-terrorist. 



> So I'll ask again,  is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion or is ENWorld a political site that has aligned itself with the social justice warrior party?  I come to this site to read RPG news and RPG discussion,  if this site is going to be about political commentary on gaming then please let me know so I can find a different site to enjoy RPG news and discussion without the very intense drama that the social justice warrior politics invariably brings.



You get to pick the conversations you participate in. It's a pretty cool concept!


----------



## GMSkarka

Serious kudos to [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION], for genuinely trying to give reasonable answers to unreasonable people.


----------



## Taneras

MechaPilot said:


> I don't think that an all male or all female campaign is what people are talking about when they object to a "boys only club."  I think people are talking about when gaming itself becomes a "_____ only club," regardless of what subset of people the blank is filled in with.




Noted, thanks as that is an important distinction.  I agree, everyone who is well behaved and interested should be welcome to play.


----------



## Obryn

AWizardInDallas said:


> I think there's another forum that discusses the issue, so will refrain from discussing it here as it would be off topic.  In any case, I see nothing wrong with an all "[insert demographic]" here group.



I'm sure there is, but I'm asking you here. 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> This article? Written by a guy named Chris?
> 
> I really don't know how this article harasses me, a 40+ year old white male non-terrorist.




I wonder what the response would be if someone posted about an issue that the community was experiencing with women and quotes a pretty spitefully titled MRA article about the way women were behaving in a specific setting, and said article went on to tell females to stop, listen, and ask how they could help.

Again, I don't understand why we need to introduce gender, race, or whatever into this conversation.  There should only be two groups of people, those who behave and those who don't.  That should be the only distinction made.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> Again, I don't understand why we need to introduce gender, race, or whatever into this conversation.  There should only be two groups of people, those who behave and those who don't.  That should be the only distinction made.



Do you realize that's the same goal shared by those you're arguing with? The main difference is that we don't think we're there yet. And we can't get there by pretending we are.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> I wonder what the response would be if someone posted about an issue that the community was experiencing with women and quotes a pretty spitefully titled MRA article about the way women were behaving in a specific setting, and said article went on to tell females to stop, listen, and ask how they could help.
> 
> Again, I don't understand why we need to introduce gender, race, or whatever into this conversation.  There should only be two groups of people, those who behave and those who don't.  That should be the only distinction made.




Except, again, to reiterate -- It is one specific group which is doing the harassing.  Literally every female colleague I have in the industry has a story about harassment, and it's always the same sort of guy responsible.   Unless you're somehow claiming that they're all lying, it's ridiculous to pretend that this is somehow a widespread issue occurring outside of that group.

So yes, it talks about representatives of a specific group.   If you share that group, but are not a harasser?   Congrats -- it doesn't apply to you.   But don't pretend that it's somehow not a specific gender and race which are the perpetrators here.  It makes you look myopic at best, disingenuous and purposefully deflecting at worst.

it's like the guys who respond to the slogan "Black Lives Matter", which is addressing a very specific set of circumstances, with the ridiculous "All Lives Matter", which denies the circumstance that the slogan is actually talking about.


----------



## Morrus

I was away at a family event this weekend. As best I can tell, in my absence we got treated to 40 pages of people on both sides of the conversation sneering and jeering at each other and calling each other names, with very little actual discussion, and certainly not in a manner which does anything other than cause people to double down and entrench, which one charitably assumes is counter to the intent of participation in the discussion. If I see anybody doing that - whatever their position - from this point, they'll just be asked to leave. Let's try and actually make things better, not score witticism points.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Do you realize that's the same goal shared by those you're arguing with? The main difference is that we don't think we're there yet. And we can't get there by pretending we are.




I'll let them speak for themselves but I know of at least 3 or 4 people who have no issue what so ever wanting this conversation to continue focusing on race, gender and whatever else.

But yes I do agree with you...  While I've always taken note of poor behavior I'll certainly start to speak to others about it as well.  Perhaps I'm in the minority, but my community down here around the Baton Rouge area is pretty tame.  Still, its not a bad message to spread around.  There's no downside to growing a hobby so long as everyone is respectful.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> Nothing at all. However, game systems are starting to insist that we adopt all alterative lifestyles




Are you able to name _literally one major modern game system_ that insists that you personally adopt an "alternative lifestyle" to play?

I'd wager not.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> Are you able to name _literally one major modern game system_ that insists that you personally adopt an "alternative lifestyle" to play?
> 
> I'd wager not.




Never said that.


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> Yep, but that won't sit well with the people who are for sending men home even if they aren't guilty.  They aren't going to want something as simple as separation.  That's why I suggested the alternative of sending both of them home.




So the harasser wins. Because if the policy is to send anyone who complains about being groped or harassed home without proof then they will simply not report it. And the people doing the harassment will just keep it on the down low. Here is why this really makes me angry the person being harassed is not doing anything other than attending the event they have done nothing wrong so why should they be punished for reporting someone bothering them? 

I am not for just throwing anyone out with evidence and I keep repeating that if that was happening we would hear about it. Most of the people running con security are volunteers they don't want trouble and most cons with anti harassment policies but them in place so people could not claim they were unaware of the rules. The thing is I would rather see an innocent person kicked out of a con then a true victim doubly punished first by being harassed then kicked out for reporting it. But like I said in most of the cases where there is no evidence other than she said or he said no one gets kicked out they get a warning. No system is perfect but this seems the most reasonable way to handle this.



Taneras said:


> It absolutely is.  The confusion will arise because you try and lump in sexual harassment and being made to feel uncomfortable.  Lets say I tell me wife a "kitchen joke" and someone over hears it.  They claim it makes them feel uncomfortable.
> 
> And as others have pointed out, this isn't just about females.  Lets say I make a comment about a monster fight "Man that adult red dragon fight was insane."  Someone hears it, and their relative has mental issues, and they claim that feel uncomfortable with me using that language.
> 
> Someone grabbed you or told you something overtly sexual/racist/whatever.  Yea that's bad and that's the sort of behavior we need to stop.  But how far does it go?  At a tech convention one guy made a "donger" joke to a friend, a woman over heard it and got the guy fired.  Instances like that, trying to police speech to that extent, will turn into a political discussion.  It already has.




Please stop just stop with this nonsense I am well aware of many in social justice who push this but that is not what anti harassment polices at cons are about. They are not about people getting upset over hearing something that was not directed at them personally. I don't know any con committee or the people who run this who feel this way. The anti harassment policies is to stop people from directly harassing another con goer. That can touching them following them around and staring at them and they continue to do so when asked to stop. It can be catcalling sexual comments, racist comments or just mean comments. 

I find a lot of people in social justice to be extreme on some of their ideas and I find people like you just as extreme you are all so busy trying to defend your positions that you make up these extreme examples of what might happen if we try and stop harassment.   



Fergurg said:


> I did read the article. The writer, in addition to claiming so many incidents that are simply not believable (seriously, she asserts that every time she called the police, she was dismissed. And that when she was 13, an entire store chanted "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" at her.), says outright that the entire gaming community is guilty, but especially the men, referring to them as, "cowards at best, terrorists at worst" and stating the exact words, "Gamers are OK with harassment and terrorism, or else they would have stopped it."




The writer did not claim that they all happened to her but that they were things she witnessed working at a game store and being around gamers. 

I know you find that part offensive but it is how it looks when there is open harassment and no one steps up and stops it. Do you believe that every white person in the South who stood by and watched as black and white protesters were dragged out and beaten simply for demanding service in a restaurant were racists? I would say a lot were but I am sur some were afraid but if yo were one of the people being dragged and beaten in front of people who did nothing you might think they supported what was happening. 



Taneras said:


> It's amazing.  In Christopher Helton's article he mentions a group of women who wanted a woman only table top campaign and were harassed because of it...  But when a guy wants to keep his group guys only, he's part of the problem mentioned in the very same article that mentioned the group of women wanting the exact same thing.




Sigh are you so clueless about how privilege works that you don't understand the issue with this. The majority of gamers are men so there will always be able to find a table with just men. Women are in the minority and offering them a chance to play at a table for just women is something that rarely happens. The issue with saying well men should be able to say they want just men to be fair is that since they are the majority by doing that it may be impossible for female players to find a table at all. I have no issue if at your home game that you want just male players. Hopefully one day there will be more female players and then this won't be an issue .



Rygar said:


> I'm not sure how you could be confused when the article cited in the text is "Tabletop gaming has a *White Male Terrorist* problem",  and is a Tumblr article,  not an actual piece of journalism or research.  This article has pretty much nothing to do with "Harrasment at cons is bad and we should do what we can to minimize it" and is completely another social justice warrior article,  a purely political piece with 0 actual research and 0 credibility.  In fact,  the utter irony is,  this whole article and the one it links to is racist and sexist in the extreme. If I replace "White Male" with any other race or the opposite sex I'm sure I'll get an insta-ban.
> 
> There's no agenda here to minimize sexual harassment,  if there actually was concern about minimizing sexual harassment then the basis of the article wouldn't be an article sexually harassing half the population and adding in racism to boot.
> 
> So I'll ask again,  is ENWorld a site for RPG news and discussion or is ENWorld a political site that has aligned itself with the social justice warrior party?  I come to this site to read RPG news and RPG discussion,  if this site is going to be about political commentary on gaming then please let me know so I can find a different site to enjoy RPG news and discussion without the very intense drama that the social justice warrior politics invariably brings.




Did you read the OP post? He said he read the blog and then asked people to comment on if they had experiences of harassment and he had around 3000 answers and that is what he was posting about. But hey deny the issue because you are upset over a title of one blog and ignore the bigger issue here.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> I'll let them speak for themselves but I know of at least 3 or 4 people who have no issue what so ever wanting this conversation to continue focusing on race, gender and whatever else.
> 
> But yes I do agree with you...  While I've always taken note of poor behavior I'll certainly start to speak to others about it as well.  Perhaps I'm in the minority, but my community down here around the Baton Rouge area is pretty tame.  Still, its not a bad message to spread around.  There's no downside to growing a hobby so long as everyone is respectful.




Here's the thing, though. The conversation *has* to focus on gender. Race maybe not as much, but definitely, totally gender. 

That's what I'm saying. You can't get to the end goal of a safer, more welcoming hobby without talking about it.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> Never said that.




I quoted you as saying it. You claimed that game systems are now insisting that their players adopt alternative lifestyles. I'm asking you to name one, and show us that insistence.


----------



## Obryn

Dannager said:


> I quoted you as saying it. You claimed that game systems are now insisting that their players to adopt alternative lifestyles. I'm asking you to name one, and show us that insistence.



*Paranoia doesn't count. 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> Except, again, to reiterate -- It is one specific group which is doing the harassing.




Likewise, worldwide looking at violent terrorist attacks, its mostly Muslims doing it.  Same goes for crime and black males between 25-35, and the same goes for women and child abuse.  Are you ok with those?  If you are, then fine, swing away at the white male table toppers who are mostly responsible for the harassment.  If you're not ok with the afformentioned connections, stop being a hypocrite.



GMSkarka said:


>




Of those houses, which one would be the harassment at conventions and which one would be the treatment of women in some Middle Eastern countries where they aren't allowed to vote, be educated, drive, and instances of stoning and them being raped are quite literally a daily occurrence?

This fallacy was brought up and dispelled earlier.  You can address multiple problems at the same time, you don't have to devote your entire life to only addressing the worst possible problem society faces without caring about anything else.  Please don't use it again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Taneras said:


> Looking through the FBI's list I have to wonder how they're defining terrorism.  Some of the charges listed in their report are as minor as "attempted vandalism" and "tree spiking".  You'll have to excuse me, and I'm not trying to minimize property owners who's property has been vandalized or had their trees killed, but I wouldn't label that as terrorism.  At least not in the category serious enough to be in the same conversation as mass shootings and bombings.
> 
> Looking world wide:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
> 
> I challenge anyone to find a group who has even half of the number of attacks listed in the last 5 years.  Hell, even one fourth of the attacks listed within the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'd bet its using the same watered down methods as the FBI.
> 
> 
> 
> The number games work both ways, either to overvalue or devalue depending on what narrative a specific group or person wants to push.  If you dig far enough you can usually find numbers that are reliable enough to paint a picture and you're correct, black males between 15-35 do account for a huge amount of crime.  Reasons and causes aside, people generally don't approve of lumping most blacks into a group, calling them thugs and gangsters, then telling the blacks who get upset at the broad stoke comparisons to focus more on reducing crime instead of getting upset most of your group is being lumped in together.
> 
> 
> 
> Citation please, because if its anything like the FBI report its very misleading.




This article from Newsweek noting the predominance of white, right-wing terrorists in the USA cites- among others, the SPLC and Arie Perliger, the director of terrorism studies at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

Here's one from Time:
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

The NY Times talks about the results of a survey of several hundred law enforcement agencies done with the Police Executive Research Foundation.  Right wing extremism was the #1 concern.  Besides more supporting numbers garnished from Perliger's work, the article also states:



> Other data sets, using different definitions of political violence, tell comparable stories. The Global Terrorism Database maintained by the Start Center at the University of Maryland includes 65 attacks in the United States associated with right-wing ideologies and 24 by Muslim extremists since 9/11. The International Security Program at the New America Foundation identifies 39 fatalities from “non-jihadist” homegrown extremists and 26 fatalities from “jihadist” extremists.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

As for Europe?  Well, Loonwatch used Europol's data- the resulting aggregate over several years of terror research was this:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

****



> I'm not debating that men are largely behind violent crimes, only that you can extend this generalized trend quite far and include groups that people will try and make exception for (as you just did).  Again, even females aren't immune, being the overwhelmingly vast majority of child abuse offenders.



While I haven't looked at the gender demographics at all, I wouldn't be surprised to find women were more likely to be child abusers than men.  They still do the majority of child care, as both family members and professionals in child day care & babysitting.  That translates into a huge statistical slant in opportunity.


----------



## GMSkarka

Taneras said:


> Are you ok with those?  If you are, then fine, swing away at the white male table toppers who are mostly responsible for the harassment.  If you're not ok with the afformentioned connections, stop being a hypocrite.




Except it's been shown to you that's not true -- via FBI stats which you then waved off as somehow not good enough.  You've decided it's true, and that's all that matters, apparently.




Taneras said:


> Of those houses, which one would be the harassment at conventions and which one would be the treatment of women in some Middle Eastern countries where they aren't allowed to vote, be educated, drive, and instances of stoning and them being raped are quite literally a daily occurrence?
> 
> This fallacy was brought up and dispelled earlier.  You can address multiple problems at the same time, you don't have to devote your entire life to only addressing the worst possible problem society faces without caring about anything else.  Please don't use it again.




One of those issues occurs in far-off lands where I've never travelled and have no plans to.  One of those issues occurs in MY WORKPLACE.   Which of those problems should I be expending energy to address?


I'm not going to kid myself that the above argument will sway you in any way, and since the owner of the site has taken the brave moral stance of "everybody should be nice, whether they're trying to address harassment in the community, or whether they're vehemently denying it exists and belittling the topic", I'll just take this as a reminder of why so many people avoid gaming sites online, and bow out myself.


----------



## Elf Witch

Ace said:


> 1st, People these days especially some in gaming many not have the level of social skills that con organizers expect. It it wise to have a basic fair policy for the occasional problem.
> 
> That policy must assume innocent until proven guilty. Just because a "gamer gurrl" says so doesn't make the creepy guy the problem. Facts only.
> 
> When someone is a problem, kick them out. Best policy, talk first if too serious  refund any remaining days and send them packing.
> 
> Make sure everything is in writing upfront and you are in compliance with the law  though less you find said "problem" has a nasty lawyer.
> 
> 2nd For people who think that the  culture wars are settled or won, not even. They are just getting started and I suspect that round two will surprise people with the ferocity of its push-back. I'd really prefer if this tiny hobby could stay Sweden or Switzerland myself. It won't, you may not be interested in the culture wars but they are interested in you.
> 
> 3rd I've gamed with and  around a lot of women, I suspect that while harassment happens occasionally its pretty rare and its more caused by the social awkwardness of a few gamers than malice.
> 
> Most of them time, people tend to be polite around the ladies.
> 
> When people make mistakes at a con or elsewhere in a public venue don't be too shy to  stop and talk to them, explain the issue. Odds are they'll fix it and they might just appreciate it.
> 
> 4th Consider the source of such accusations or this accusation and what axe  they have to grind especially.   Anyone who uses racist  speech as an  as an opener is doing it wrong .If we are going to abide by speech codes than everyone is. Its not Animal Farm here, some animals and genders are not more equal than others.
> 
> 5th The idea of this hobby is too have fun and nothing else. Other goals, inclusiveness or diversity or the constant pounding of ideological drums however worthy they may be  often degrade the fun as  much as  alleged  harassment. Don't allow this to happen.
> 
> By all means check bad behaviors but check all behaviors whether harassment or sh*t stirring.  We need a fun placed to play where the   conference attendees can't enjoy themselves without the egg shell walking that makes up "inclusiveness and diversity"
> 
> Doesn't mean we shouldn't be polite but if an exaggerated code of niceness tales away people's fun so a few can have a safe place, Its not worth it.
> 
> 6th And last, for you home game. Don't hesitate to screen people. Its harder at a con but you should do this at home. My own game does.
> 
> Don't be inclusive, be exclusive. It makes for far better gaming experience.
> 
> The hobby  has changed and the days when gamers were pretty much alike is gone. This isn't racial mind you but the Left/Right gap has infected the hobby as it has the culture. Its sad that we are not "all gamers together" any more but not much can be done for that.
> 
> 
> A personal opinion,the intensification of the culture wars has not been good for our hobby. Not that many years ago, I could assume pretty much all gamers were alike and I'd had gamed with really ethnically  diverse groups with differing opinions on everything, incompatible religions  and so on.  We were all gamers together
> 
> That's gone  and the level of rancor has increased enough that a lot more screening and refusal is the norm, if only to keep peace at the table. If people cannot be tolerant of speech than they have to be homogeneous. Its sad, I've enjoyed the unique pleasure that actual diversity without the eggshell walking and worrying about bringing offense or someone getting sued or false claims  or any of that.
> 
> This “one weird trick” that brings us together seems like clickbait now and its sad.
> 
> And in case anyone asks, it won't come back till the culture wars end and as Ice T famously rapped “Our war won't end till all wars cease.”




You realize that it is not just Gamer gurrl as you call us complain about being harassed so have people of color and LGBTQ people. This is not just about women it is about protecting everyone right to not be harassed at an event and that includes straight white guys as well. 



If someone reports a case of harassment then it is the duty of the people to address it. If they have no evidence because no one saw it then they can warn the person to stay away from the person making the complaint and keep a closer eye on him.

I am really tired of the excuse that harassers don't know better and are socially awkward. I used to be shy and socially awkward but I knew touching someone without their permission was wrong I knew calling out nasty things to them was wrong and I knew that when someone asked me to stop bothering them that I should. 

So being inclusive and accepting diversity in our hobby is ruing the fun? So darn those women and minorities for wanting to be included in the fun and maybe if people would just allow them to have fun too without bullying there would be no need to beat on the drum.


----------



## Dire Bare

My post upthread about gaming being a "boys-only club" was referencing the hobby as a whole, not specific gaming groups.

Most gaming groups I've been a part of have been all white men. It wasn't necessarily a stated goal, just how things worked out as most of my gaming friends are white guys and of course, statistically, most gamers are white guys. The few times I've gamed with people of color, women, and/or LGBQT have been a welcome respite usually.

If I heard that a female friend was forming a women's only gaming group, I would applaud. If another friend was forming an all black gaming group, or an all queer gaming group, I would again applaud them for trying to make the hobby their own.

If I had one of my white guy friends say, "Hey, let's form a new gaming group, no women allowed!" I would say, "No thanks." And while I would respect that friends right to game with who he pleases, my opinion of him as a person would drop to the bottom of the ocean, we probably wouldn't be friends much longer.

I hope that someday in the distant future, an all women group, an all minority group, or an all queer group would be just as weird as an all white guys group, but that day is not today.

Why is there no "White History Month" indeed.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Obryn said:


> I'm sure there is, but I'm asking you here.
> 
> Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk




Well, you've been polite, so I'll outline the problem as best I can.  First, by "adopt alternative lifestyles," I meant in a fantasy game world society, not in reality, as that would be an absurd position (akin to saying that video games cause violent behavior, which isn't the case).  No, I'm not saying the rules are going to "turn anybody [insert] here."  Again, absurd.

This adoption snowballs into my own preferences, my game world, and my own acting ability at the table.  For example, I'm incapable of role-playing a transgender person.  Worse, I might buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle so now I'm forced to play a lifestyle not only alien to me, but unsettling to me on a personal level... and if I "do it wrong" I cause offense.  I've played for 35 years and sex is a topic generally and traditionally left on the sidelines which is where it belongs.  Were I a professional Hollywood actor, I'd get to choose whether to "take the part."  I likewise get to abstain from purchasing a game system which attempts to wheedle that into "my world."

It's up to you and your group to add those features if that's what you want, not a game system.



Dannager said:


> Are you able to name _literally one major modern game system_ that insists that you personally adopt an "alternative lifestyle" to play?
> 
> I'd wager not.




See above.


----------



## Taneras

Elf Witch said:


> Please stop just stop with this nonsense I am well aware of many in social justice who push this but that is not what anti harassment polices at cons are about.




I've seen this sort of mentality spread through 3 or 4 of my other hobbies already so you'll have to forgive me if I seem concerned about that.



Elf Witch said:


> I don't know any con committee or the people who run this who feel this way.




Many universities here in America have implemented similar "micro-aggression" policies.  If you'd like I can link you to some videos/articles.



Elf Witch said:


> I find people like you just as extreme you are all so busy trying to defend your positions that you make up these extreme examples of what might happen if we try and stop harassment.




In the spirit of assumptions being put to text, I find people like you to just be naive and ignorant of what's actually going on.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/

Someone was fired because the person behind them overheard a "dongle" joke that was made to a friend.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22839/

Many universities are now starting to police language used by professors and student workers/government bodies.  Some of these offensive phrases include...

"America is a melting pot."

"I don't see skin color, I just see people."

"I believe the most qualified person should get the job."

Items like I mentioned earlier, like "nuts", "insane" or "crazy" are often included as they marginalize individuals with mental health issues.



Elf Witch said:


> Sigh are you so clueless about how privilege works that you don't understand the issue with this. The majority of gamers are men so there will always be able to find a table with just men.




You're so wrapped up in the fact that I'm not agreeing with you 100% that you aren't actually reading what I'm typing.  No, I don't deny that.  That's not the issue.  Please re-read what I said a few more times.  *My issue was with someone who claimed that the men who want all men table top campaigns are part of the harassment problem*.  This becomes even more hypocritical when you consider that they posted this comment in a thread created with an article which complained that women wanting to do the same thing was met with harassment.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> This adoption snowballs into my own preferences, my game world, and my own acting ability at the table.  For example, I'm incapable of role-playing a transgender person.  Worse, I might buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle so now I'm forced to play a lifestyle not only alien to me, but unsettling to me on a personal level...




You find transgender people and people with non-hetero sexualities "unsettling on a personal level" and are literally incapable of pretending to be one such person?

But roleplaying actual murderous villains is something you feel perfectly at home doing?

And presumably you've roleplayed women NPCs in the past just fine, despite them being (ostensibly) attracted to men.

You'll forgive us if we have trouble taking this sort of claim seriously.



> and if I "do it wrong" I cause offense.




Really? You've made an honest effort to roleplay someone with an "alternative lifestyle" in a respectful manner, and people have taken you to task for "doing it wrong"? If that's honestly happened to you, I'm sorry you had to experience that.



> I've played for 35 years and sex is a topic generally and traditionally left on the sidelines which is where it belongs.




Sex? Sure. Sexuality and gender? Not so much. Or should we bring to your attention the countless times heterosexuality is highlighted or mentioned in your typical published campaign?


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Well, you've been polite, so I'll outline the problem as best I can.  First, by "adopt alternative lifestyles," I meant in a fantasy game world society, not in reality, as that would be an absurd position (akin to saying that video games cause violent behavior, which isn't the case).  No, I'm not saying the rules are going to "turn anybody [insert] here."  Again, absurd.
> 
> This adoption snowballs into my own preferences, my game world, and my own acting ability at the table.  For example, I'm incapable of role-playing a transgender person.  Worse, I might buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle so now I'm forced to play a lifestyle not only alien to me, but unsettling to me on a personal level... and if I "do it wrong" I cause offense.  I've played for 35 years and sex is a topic generally and traditionally left on the sidelines which is where it belongs.  Were I a professional Hollywood actor, I'd get to choose whether to "take the part."  I likewise get to abstain from purchasing a game system which attempts to wheedle that into "my world."
> 
> It's up to you and your group to add those features if that's what you want, not a game system.




I just want to clarify something:

If a DM "buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle" that DM doesn't have to play that lifestyle.  DMs constantly change published adventures to suit their tastes and their homebrewed settings.

If an NPC is written as straight, you can play them as not straight (and vice versa).  If an NPC is described as white, you can make them a person of color (and vice versa).  No one is going to bust down your door and demand that you play it the way it was written.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> You find transgender people and people with non-hetero sexualities "unsettling on a personal level" and are literally incapable of pretending to be one such person?
> 
> But roleplaying actual murderous villains is something you feel perfectly at home doing?
> 
> You'll forgive us if we have trouble taking this sort of claim seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You've made an honest effort to roleplay someone with an "alternative lifestyle" in a respectful manner, and people have taken you to task for "doing it wrong"? If that's honestly happened to you, I'm sorry you had to experience that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex? Sure. Sexuality and gender? Not so much. Or should we bring to your attention the countless times heterosexuality is highlighted or mentioned in your typical published campaign?




I'm entitled to my preferences.


----------



## Taneras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This article from Newsweek noting the predominance of white, right-wing terrorists in the USA cites- among others, the SPLC and Arie Perliger, the director of terrorism studies at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
> 
> Here's one from Time:
> http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
> 
> The NY Times talks about the results of a survey of several hundred law enforcement agencies done with the Police Executive Research Foundation.  Right wing extremism was the #1 concern.  Besides more supporting numbers garnished from Perliger's work, the article also states:
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0
> 
> As for Europe?  Well, Loonwatch used Europol's data- the resulting aggregate over several years of terror research was this:
> http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/




As I look through this, what do you have to say about your original link to the FBI report who included "tree spiking" and "attempted vandalism" with regards to terrorism?  Regardless of whether or not you think that those things are actually terrorism, hopefully you can see the difference between that and violent attacks like mass shootings and bombings.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I haven't looked at the gender demographics at all, I wouldn't be surprised to find women were more likely to be child abusers than men.  They still do the majority of child care, as both family members and professionals in child day care & babysitting.  That translates into a huge statistical slant in opportunity.




I haven't read all your posts here, but did you ever make such a distinction with white male population percentages and how that might skew harassment reports in the table top community?  If not, why haven't you yet?  I have no issue with that defense, but lets apply it across the board.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> I just want to clarify something:
> 
> If a DM "buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle" that DM doesn't have to play that lifestyle.  DMs constantly change published adventures to suit their tastes and their homebrewed settings.





Defeats the purpose of purchasing prepared material.


----------



## Cergorach

Elf Witch said:


> I am really tired of the excuse that harassers don't know better and are socially awkward. I used to be shy and socially awkward but I knew touching someone without their permission was wrong I knew calling out nasty things to them was wrong and I knew that when someone asked me to stop bothering them that I should.



Social awkward or being a nerd/geek should never ever be an excuse for those actions!

But please understand that some of us have never observed that behavior in our gaming communities, game stores, or even local cons. I hope most of us are not these kinds of people, so it might be some quite alien concepts for a lot of gamers. Rationally I can recognize that nerdy gamers aren't some kind of exception to society, there are rapists, killers, and criminals among us. It just doesn't jive with the save place we view gaming and our personal experiences. Some people won't react to this rationally though and throw up denials and excuses.

I'm curious if this problem is prevalent in North America or is it also as prevalent (or better/worse) in Europe?


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> If an NPC is written as straight, you can play them as not straight (and vice versa).  If an NPC is described as white, you can make them a person of color (and vice versa).  No one is going to bust down your door and demand that you play it the way it was written.




I was asked to elaborate.  I did that.  No desire to refute the obvious.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm entitled to my preferences.




You absolutely are! But it leaves the rest of us wondering if your preferences (which I'm sure none of us saw coming) are perhaps the actual driving force behind your staunch opposition to the notion that claims from women and minorities of harassment in the gaming community should be taken more seriously.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Defeats the purpose of purchasing prepared material.




What is the purpose of purchasing adventures?  Is it not to cut down on DM prep time by not forcing the DM to write and design the adventure?  Do you still not reap a considerable time savings by simply altering the color, gender, or sexuality of one, two, or even a handful of characters as compared to having to design and write the whole adventure from scratch?


----------



## Elf Witch

AWizardInDallas said:


> Well, you've been polite, so I'll outline the problem as best I can.  First, by "adopt alternative lifestyles," I meant in a fantasy game world society, not in reality, as that would be an absurd position (akin to saying that video games cause violent behavior, which isn't the case).  No, I'm not saying the rules are going to "turn anybody [insert] here."  Again, absurd.
> 
> This adoption snowballs into my own preferences, my game world, and my own acting ability at the table.  For example, I'm incapable of role-playing a transgender person.  Worse, I might buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle so now I'm forced to play a lifestyle not only alien to me, but unsettling to me on a personal level... and if I "do it wrong" I cause offense.  I've played for 35 years and sex is a topic generally and traditionally left on the sidelines which is where it belongs.  Were I a professional Hollywood actor, I'd get to choose whether to "take the part."  I likewise get to abstain from purchasing a game system which attempts to wheedle that into "my world."
> 
> It's up to you and your group to add those features if that's what you want, not a game system.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.




This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard. First of all no one is forcing you to play anything you have the same freedom as the people you are telling to just add the things they want to take out things you don't like. And there is no doing it wrong who is going to offended about what you do at your home game? If you are at a con game then just find another game that you feel more comfortable with or talk to the GM and see if they will change it for because you feel uncomfortable. And if you are running that game take it out. 

You realize that transgener people play this game as well as gays so why should the game only cater to people like you that is pretty arrogant? They should be included as well. I am a straight white woman. I prefer to play female PCs. But as a DM I have played male characters, straight, gay and one transgender. I am certainly no elf, dwarf, orc, mind flayer but I play them.  For years most NPCs in modules were straight males gay DMs found away to play them female DMs found away to play them. Now there is a little more diversity which is a good thing. I could see an issue if every NPC from here on out was trangender but that is not going to happen there will still be straight male NPCs.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> You absolutely are! But it leaves the rest of us wondering if your preferences (which I'm sure none of us saw coming) are perhaps the actual driving force behind your staunch opposition to the notion that claims from women and minorities of harassment in the gaming community should be taken more seriously.




I'm primarily opposed to two things:

1. White. Male. Terrorist. That is literally in the title.  Classification of an entire demographic as terrorists and default guilt by association.
2. False accusation and the associated abuse.

I've made that abundantly clear.


----------



## Taneras

GMSkarka said:


> Except it's been shown to you that's not true -- via FBI stats which you then waved off as somehow not good enough.  You've decided it's true, and that's all that matters, apparently.




FBI stats certainly support the young black males and crime connection, so you're still on the hook for that.

And I guess you glossed over my comment of the FBI report itself didn't you.  Unless you think that "tree spiking" should be counted along side mass shootings and bombings, those FBI stats aren't an accurate representation.



GMSkarka said:


> One of those issues occurs in far-off lands where I've never travelled and have no plans to.  One of those issues occurs in MY WORKPLACE.   Which of those problems should I be expending energy to address?




Which house is which?  This is a really easy question.  I'm sorry the point in your comic is falling apart.




GMSkarka said:


> I'm not going to kid myself that the above argument will sway you in any way...




Thanks that's the first kind thing you've said to me so far, intelligent people don't find logical fallacies all that convincing.  Google "Fallacy of relative privation" or the "not as bad as fallacy".


----------



## Dannager

MechaPilot said:


> What is the purpose of purchasing adventures?  Is it not to cut down on DM prep time by not forcing the DM to write and design the adventure?  Do you still not reap a considerable time savings by simply altering the color, gender, or sexuality of one, two, or even a handful of characters as compared to having to design and write the whole adventure from scratch?




Yep. The real problem is something else entirely: he finds "alternative lifestyles" personally unsettling and doesn't want anything to do with anything that mentions them, and _certainly_ doesn't want to support any company that supports those "alternative lifestyles". It isn't about the work, or the effort saved. It's about being disgusted by the gays.


----------



## Rygar

Elf Witch said:


> Did you read the OP post? He said he read the blog and then asked people to comment on if they had experiences of harassment and he had around 3000 answers and that is what he was posting about. But hey deny the issue because you are upset over a title of one blog and ignore the bigger issue here.




Give me evidence there is a bigger issue here.  A Tumblr blog has 0 credibility,  any number of those 3000 answers can (and almost certainly include) shill accounts and/or are completely fabricated.  Anyone familiar with Tumblr would realize that one shouldn't take any metrics from it or from anything linked to it.  A Tumblr blog does not qualify as evidence of anything.


----------



## Elf Witch

Cergorach said:


> Social awkward or being a nerd/geek should never ever be an excuse for those actions!
> 
> But please understand that some of us have never observed that behavior in our gaming communities, game stores, or even local cons. I hope most of us are not these kinds of people, so it might be some quite alien concepts for a lot of gamers. Rationally I can recognize that nerdy gamers aren't some kind of exception to society, there are rapists, killers, and criminals among us. It just doesn't jive with the save place we view gaming and our personal experiences. Some people won't react to this rationally though and throw up denials and excuses.
> 
> I'm curious if this problem is prevalent in North America or is it also as prevalent (or better/worse) in Europe?




I am actually happy that so many have not observed it that is a good thing.  Because I hope that means it is not happening all the time.

I don't know and it would be interesting to see what people who frequent events in Europe have to say about this.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm primarily opposed to two things:




I think we all know it runs a little deeper than that, now.



> 1. White. Male. Terrorist. That is literally in the title.  Classification of an entire demographic as terrorists and default guilt by association.




It's not the author's fault that you didn't quite get the point. I'm white and male, and you don't see me assuming that he believes I'm a terrorist. So why do you believe he means you?



> 2. False accusation and the associated abuse.




Which we know isn't an issue, and if it becomes one we can deal with.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Elf Witch said:


> This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard. First of all no one is forcing you to play anything you have the same freedom as the people you are telling to just add the things they want to take out things you don't like. And there is no doing it wrong who is going to offended about what you do at your home game? If you are at a con game then just find another game that you feel more comfortable with or talk to the GM and see if they will change it for because you feel uncomfortable. And if you are running that game take it out.
> 
> You realize that transgener people play this game as well as gays so why should the game only cater to people like you that is pretty arrogant? They should be included as well. I am a straight white woman. I prefer to play female PCs. But as a DM I have played male characters, straight, gay and one transgender. I am certainly no elf, dwarf, orc, mind flayer but I play them.  For years most NPCs in modules were straight males gay DMs found away to play them female DMs found away to play them. Now there is a little more diversity which is a good thing. I could see an issue if every NPC from here on out was trangender but that is not going to happen there will still be straight male NPCs.




I don't care what other people do.  I was asked (politely) to elaborate.  I did that.  I'm entitled to my preferences, including choice of game system, and make no apologies.  I use my dollars as my vote.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm primarily opposed to two things:
> 
> 1. White. Male. Terrorist. That is literally in the title.




That is literally in the title of the material linked to by the OP, but not the title of this thread.  However, at least in this thread, that material is tangential.  That material has simply caused the OP to gather information and present his results here.  That the material with a title that is offensive to you has been the impetus for a poster to begin a conversation should not poison the conversation.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Well while the discussion focused on future gaming conventions and gaming stores I had to finally admit defeat and meet the only lady willing to brave the wrath of the male community to play in an all womans game for an online RPG convention and tell her it was cancelled. So in their fight for inclusiveness which offering a single all womans game clearly violated, they have a convention of all male GM's and all male players, wait, 4 women actually did play in a couple of the 60 games offered, so yes see how diverse and inclusive they are. This is happening NOW. I won't say more, I'll pack all my gaming materials into a file and know it will take a log time to find another place to play, if ever. I live 50 miles from the nearest gaming store, and since I have epilepsy and that bars driving that is not an option. Online RPG's were my only option, and given half the community sandbagged and quietly boycotted my games, not just at the convention, but forcing the end of my campaign, and because they DID sandbag I truly have no idea who is safe there and who is not, I see little alternatives but leave the hobby to more worthy types.


----------



## Dannager

Rygar said:


> Give me evidence there is a bigger issue here.  A Tumblr blog has 0 credibility,  any number of those 3000 answers can (and almost certainly include) shill accounts and/or are completely fabricated.  Anyone familiar with Tumblr would realize that one shouldn't take any metrics from it or from anything linked to it.  A Tumblr blog does not qualify as evidence of anything.




Seriously? Even a small fraction of 3000 incidents of harassment is a problem. And why would any of them go through the trouble of making up harassment?

Come on, man.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> Which we know isn't an issue, and if it becomes one we can deal with.




I don't build things with failure points and this is a failure point.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> That is literally in the title of the material linked to by the OP, but not the title of this thread.  However, at least in this thread, that material is tangential.  That material has simply caused the OP to gather information and present his results here.  That the material with a title that is offensive to you has been the impetus for a poster to begin a conversation should not poison the conversation.




I can't help that it's relevant.


----------



## Elf Witch

Rygar said:


> Give me evidence there is a bigger issue here.  A Tumblr blog has 0 credibility,  any number of those 3000 answers can (and almost certainly include) shill accounts and/or are completely fabricated.  Anyone familiar with Tumblr would realize that one shouldn't take any metrics from it or from anything linked to it.  A Tumblr blog does not qualify as evidence of anything.




Many people on this thread have spoken about their experiences. Most con committees have had to deal with the issue. The issue has been written about in major publications not just blogs.  And there have been many many many blogs written about personal experiences with this issue. So yeah it is an issue. 

So you are choosing to believe that 3000 people are lying, being shrill, then that they have experienced harassment at gaming events and cons? Okay then there is nothing more to say.


----------



## MechaPilot

Rygar said:


> Give me evidence there is a bigger issue here.  A Tumblr blog has 0 credibility,  any number of those 3000 answers can (and almost certainly include) shill accounts and/or are completely fabricated.  Anyone familiar with Tumblr would realize that one shouldn't take any metrics from it or from anything linked to it.  A Tumblr blog does not qualify as evidence of anything.




Please read the OP's post.  And I do mean the OP's post, not just the material linked to.  The OP has collected his own accounts independent of the linked to material.  The linked to material simply caused the OP to gather information and start a discussion.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I don't build things with failure points and this is a failure point.




This isn't a bridge. This is a social construct. If there's a problem with something in the future, it can be addressed. It doesn't need to be flawless. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Regardless, at this point I don't think many of us are expecting you to help build _anything_. I think most of us would really settle for you sitting on the sidelines while the rest of us build it.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> Yep. The real problem is something else entirely: he finds "alternative lifestyles" personally unsettling and doesn't want anything to do with anything that mentions them, and _certainly_ doesn't want to support any company that supports those "alternative lifestyles". It isn't about the work, or the effort saved. It's about being disgusted by the gays.




Said nothing of the sort.  Rewording what I actually said and adding your own crappola.  I'm done with you.  Discussion terminated due to lack of manners.


----------



## Taneras

AWizardInDallas said:


> Defeats the purpose of purchasing prepared material.




I don't think for a second that it does, but if that's how you feel don't buy prepared material and build your campaign from scratch - like a lot of people do.

Personally speaking I've often used prepared campaigns as a framework to mold and fit my tastes.  Some of the dialogue is a bit tacky and lame, so I spice it up.  I often add to, or change back stories, so that they fit what I'm picturing in my head as I read through the chapters.

There's nothing wrong with feeling uncomfortable role playing as a certain demographic, but I think you're going way overboard here.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> Yep. The real problem is something else entirely: he finds "alternative lifestyles" personally unsettling and doesn't want anything to do with anything that mentions them, and _certainly_ doesn't want to support any company that supports those "alternative lifestyles". It isn't about the work, or the effort saved. It's about being disgusted by the gays.




Said nothing of the sort.  Rewording what I actually said and adding your own crappola.  I'm done with you.  Discussion terminated due to lack of manners.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> Said nothing of the sort.  Rewording what I actually said and adding your own crappola.  I'm done with you.  Discussion terminated due to lack of manners.




Why do you sound like you're filling out a compliance form every time someone doesn't handle your words with the feather-soft care you feel they deserve? "Discussion terminated"? Please.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Taneras said:


> I don't think for a second that it does, but if that's how you feel don't buy prepared material and build your campaign from scratch - like a lot of people do.
> 
> Personally speaking I've often used prepared campaigns as a framework to mold and fit my tastes.  Some of the dialogue is a bit tacky and lame, so I spice it up.  I often add to, or change back stories, so that they fit what I'm picturing in my head as I read through the chapters.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with feeling uncomfortable role playing as a certain demographic, but I think you're going way overboard here.




Ugh.  I was asked to elaborate.  I did that.  I recently dropped the published game world I was using and am indeed using my own material.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> Why do you sound like you're filling out a compliance form every time someone doesn't handle your words with the feather-soft care you feel they deserve? "Discussion terminated"? Please.




I don't feed trolls. Were someone rude to me in person I would let them know that I know longer wish to speak with them and the reason. Done.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Ugh.  I was asked to elaborate.  I did that.  I recently dropped the published game world I was using and am indeed using my own material.




I hope you're having fun with your own game world.  I know that creating game worlds has been a rewarding experience for me.

I am only recently getting into using published materials (I had not done so until I started DM'ing 5e while working and attending night classes), but I've found that a lot of it works.  The biggest issues that I usually have are having to find locations in my game world for the adventures, and having to replace races (like Halflings) that don't exist in my game worlds.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I don't feed trolls. Were someone rude to me in person I would let them know that I know longer wish to speak with them and the reason. Done.




Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll. Someone repeating your own words back in a way that suddenly no longer sounds flattering doesn't make them a troll. You can make up whatever excuse you want for avoiding answering the hard questions you're being asked. Hopefully you're honest enough with yourself to acknowledge why you're doing what you're doing, though.


----------



## Taneras

AWizardInDallas said:


> Ugh.  I was asked to elaborate.  I did that.  I recently dropped the published game world I was using and am indeed using my own material.




That's fine, but do you think its easier to build what you want from scratch rather than simply changing the transsexual mayor (I believe that was the example) to whatever it is you feel comfortable role playing as?

Table top game creators, so far as I've understood them, have emphasized that they're only building a framework for us to operate within.  I recall the first time I heard about this hobby and being bewildered, "Why would you want to keep track of things that computers are already doing (like hit points, damage, speed, etc.)? Then a friend explained that a game is structured, having a mind take the role of the computer allows for a much more open experience because people can adjust to changes were a computer will limit you because the script wasn't written to include that action or behavior.  Rules and campaigns are only meant to be guidelines, they're nothing concrete.

If you bought a campaign thinking that it was being sold as some sort of static thing, you're mistaken.  Table top gaming is fluid, and its one of the reasons why some people prefer it over playing a computer game where everything is fixed in place.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> There's nothing wrong with feeling uncomfortable role playing as a certain demographic, but I think you're going way overboard here.




That's because it isn't about him feeling uncomfortable roleplaying as a certain demographic. It's about something much, much larger and more fundamental to his worldview.

And that same fundamental facet of his person is the real reason behind his opposition to anything that proactively addresses the harassment problem in the gaming community. You shouldn't be taking his arguments at face value.

"It's about the potential for abuse!" is about as coherent and honest an argument as, "It's about ethics in game journalism!"


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergurg said:


> The political aspect is over HOW to stop it and whether or not "The accusation is the evidence". You are OK with that standard. I am not. That is where the political divide stands.




That's not a political divide, it's just an empathy divide. You imagine that some people suffering harassment is a better world than anyone ever being unjustly ousted from a con. That's a position that shows a lack of empathy for the harassed - you don't seem to understand that their suffering could be greater than the suffering of someone kicked out of a con unjustly. 



Libramarian said:


> Have they? Literally they will throw anyone out no questions asked if they're accused of harassment?
> 
> If so, why was this presented as an innovative idea?




We've got several examples in this thread alone! I don't know that it's being presented as an innovative idea, though some apparently regard it as a very _controversial_ one. A lot of the discussion so far has focused on how it's actually a fairly effective answer to the problem, despite some posters' apparently overblown fears of unjust persecution.  



Rygar said:


> I'm not sure how you could be confused when the article cited in the text is "Tabletop gaming has a *White Male Terrorist* problem",  and is a Tumblr article,  not an actual piece of journalism or research.  This article has pretty much nothing to do with "Harrasment at cons is bad and we should do what we can to minimize it" and is completely another social justice warrior article,  a purely political piece with 0 actual research and 0 credibility.




The thesis of that article - much like the thesis of the OP here - is that harassment at cons happens and is bad. There's some strong language about _how_ bad, but if you remove all that strong language, the position left is "harassment at cons happens and is bad." There's nothing controversial about that thesis. It is something we can all agree on (even if we can't seem to agree about one incident related in the blog post actually happening or about the vilification of the sexual predators the post also does).


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> You shouldn't be taking his arguments at face value.




I do my best to approach any conversation with the idea that if a statement can be interpreted 2 or 3 different ways that they meant the best and most positive interpretation, not the worst and most negative.  Until proven otherwise, of course.  It actually works very well and keeps a lot of the bickering and drama down.  At least that's been my experience.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Until proven otherwise, of course.




That ship sailed twenty pages ago, man.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Dannager said:


> Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll. Someone repeating your own words back in a way that suddenly no longer sounds flattering doesn't make them a troll. You can make up whatever excuse you want for avoiding answering the hard questions you're being asked. Hopefully you're honest enough with yourself to acknowledge why you're doing what you're doing, though.




You classified me...



Dannager said:


> It's about being disgusted by the gays.




I said nothing of the kind.  Not remotely.  This is not a "disagreement."  It's profiling and it's impolite.  Nope.  Done with you.


----------



## Elf Witch

Taneras said:


> I've seen this sort of mentality spread through 3 or 4 of my other hobbies already so you'll have to forgive me if I seem concerned about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Many universities here in America have implemented similar "micro-aggression" policies.  If you'd like I can link you to some videos/articles.
> 
> 
> 
> In the spirit of assumptions being put to text, I find people like you to just be naive and ignorant of what's actually going on.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/
> 
> Someone was fired because the person behind them overheard a "dongle" joke that was made to a friend.
> 
> http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22839/
> 
> Many universities are now starting to police language used by professors and student workers/government bodies.  Some of these offensive phrases include...
> 
> "America is a melting pot."
> 
> "I don't see skin color, I just see people."
> 
> "I believe the most qualified person should get the job."
> 
> Items like I mentioned earlier, like "nuts", "insane" or "crazy" are often included as they marginalize individuals with mental health issues.
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrapped up in the fact that I'm not agreeing with you 100% that you aren't actually reading what I'm typing.  No, I don't deny that.  That's not the issue.  Please re-read what I said a few more times.  *My issue was with someone who claimed that the men who want all men table top campaigns are part of the harassment problem*.  This becomes even more hypocritical when you consider that they posted this comment in a thread created with an article which complained that women wanting to do the same thing was met with harassment.




I happen to agree that making sexual jokes at an event the way those guys were doing was inappropriate and they should have been asked to stop, Should a black person have to sit at an event and listen to racist jokes about black people? Freedom of speech does not mean that there are no consequences to it. 

I am well aware of what some universities are doing and you know what I think some of it is extreme. 

But what I am taking away from this is that you while saying harassment is wrong are more worried that about what might happen to some innocent guy making a bad joke than actually preventing harassment and dealing with it when it happens. 

One article written by an angry women inspired the OP to ask others if they had ever experiences problems and he got over 3000 answers. This thread was not about disputing what she said but what the 3000 who answered him said. 

Again you refuse to see privilege and why it makes a difference. Men especially white men are the majority in gaming as of now they will never have an issue of going to a con and not being able to find a game that has only men in it. So yes right now A DM at a con saying he only wants men at his table is practicing discrimination. What if all the men say that? What was harsement in the cae mentioned was one man making such a stink about one game out of dozens being for females only thus making it impossible to run which is harassment.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I said nothing of the kind.  Not remotely.  This is not a "disagreement."  It's profiling and it's impolite.




So homosexuality doesn't bother you?


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> That ship sailed twenty pages ago, man.




For you, but not for me.  And I'm not signing up with the "he's a horrible person, lets berate him" group.  I'd like to know why he feels the way he feels.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> For you, but not for me.  And I'm not signing up with the "he's a horrible person, lets berate him" group.  I'd like to know why he feels the way he feels.




You won't get to the bottom of that barrel. Any reasons you are given will be nothing more than rationalizations for a much deeper, closely-held belief system that I very much doubt he will openly admit to embracing here. But come on. It isn't exactly a puzzle.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> I hope you're having fun with your own game world.  I know that creating game worlds has been a rewarding experience for me.
> 
> I am only recently getting into using published materials (I had not done so until I started DM'ing 5e while working and attending night classes), but I've found that a lot of it works.  The biggest issues that I usually have are having to find locations in my game world for the adventures, and having to replace races (like Halflings) that don't exist in my game worlds.




I am!  That's interesting... I chose to remove halflings too, initially out of respect for the Tolkien estate.


----------



## Elf Witch

AWizardInDallas said:


> I don't care what other people do.  I was asked (politely) to elaborate.  I did that.  I'm entitled to my preferences, including choice of game system, and make no apologies.  I use my dollars as my vote.




Exactly the same as everyone else does. Which is why there are now LGBTQ, people of color and women NPBs being written in modules because we play the game too and spend our money on it and the companies only care that our money is the same color as yours.


----------



## Dannager

And, of course, companies are discovering that there _is_ money to be made by being more inclusive - one of the reasons that the genie won't be put back in the bottle, so to speak. The world will never be the comfortable, empowering place for bigoted white dudes it once was, and gaming is no exception.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Elf Witch said:


> Exactly the same as everyone else does. Which is why there are now LGBTQ, people of color and women NPBs being written in modules because we play the game too and spend our money on it and the companies only care that our money is the same color as yours.




Yep, which is what I meant earlier by pandering.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> Yep, which is what I meant earlier by pandering.




How _dare_ they give their customers what they want! Those degenerates!


----------



## Taneras

Elf Witch said:


> I happen to agree that making sexual jokes at an event the way those guys were doing was inappropriate and they should have been asked to stop, Should a black person have to sit at an event and listen to racist jokes about black people? Freedom of speech does not mean that there are no consequences to it.




I disagree that a dongle joke (I have a big dongle - I believe was the effect of the joke) is comparative to a racist joke making fun of black people.

So what about my kitchen joke that I might have made to my wife.  That's one of my original examples that you said I was over reacting about.  Couldn't that be seen as a sexist joke?  Couldn't that make a female, or even a male, uncomfortable?



Elf Witch said:


> But what I am taking away from this is that you while saying harassment is wrong are more worried that about what might happen to some innocent guy making a bad joke than actually preventing harassment and dealing with it when it happens.




I'm concerned about a knee jerking reaction that creates overboard policies that include what I've already mentioned.  And I don't think that I'm being paranoid because I've already seen it happen with some of my other hobbies/interests.  Atheism, for example, has issues with it.  For the record I'm not trying to derail and discuss religion, I have no issue with personal supernatural beliefs so long as everyone's rights are respected.  But some atheist conventions have gotten that bad, even canceling certain speakers, for petty comments.  In an attempt to create a safer and more friendly space, they've gone overboard with super strict policies that have honestly created more problems than they have solved.

I think there's a way to create policies that don't over reach.  And I hope that's what's done.  I'd hate to be asked to leave an event because of a joke I made with my wife or I uttered the word "crazy".



Elf Witch said:


> So yes right now A DM at a con saying he only wants men at his table is practicing discrimination.




That's the definition of sexism, creating different standards of behavior for each gender.  I don't think what's between your legs should have any bearing on what you're allowed to do.



Elf Witch said:


> What if all the men say that?




Then its probably a very small store operated environment.  I can't imagine this would occur at a large convention.  Has it?



Elf Witch said:


> What was harsement in the cae mentioned was one man making such a stink about one game out of dozens being for females only thus making it impossible to run which is harassment.




And I agree 100%, I'd have no issue with a woman wanting to run an all female table top campaign so long as we apply the same standards to men.


----------



## mrm1138

I'd like to point everyone to the most recent episode of the NPC Cast in which the hosts tackle this very topic. The most interesting point one of them made is that, as a game store employee himself, he's noticed a distinct trend towards stores that identify themselves as safe spaces being much more financially successful than those that do nothing to curb harassment and other bad behaviors. As Dannager says, inclusiveness is good for the hobby. I personally don't understand why this is something that has been politicized since, at its core, it's about treating other people with dignity and respect.

https://npccast.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/we-can-do-better/


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Taneras said:


> For you, but not for me.  And I'm not signing up with the "he's a horrible person, lets berate him" group.  I'd like to know why he feels the way he feels.




I'm not replying to Dannager any longer.  He's classified me as homophobic and is now talking about me in 3rd person.  The berating is ironic though.


----------



## Rygar

Dannager said:


> Seriously? Even a small fraction of 3000 incidents of harassment is a problem. And why would any of them go through the trouble of making up harassment?
> 
> Come on, man.




You're apparently not familiar with Tumblr.  Facts,  Truth,  those things are not ideals Tumblr is well known for.  Tumblr is well known for factual incorrectness,  misrepresenting/skewing data,  and outright lies,  then when caught it was all "To start a conversation".

Anything on Tumblr should be immediately regarded as fiction.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> Yep, which is what I meant earlier by pandering.




Serious question:

What is the difference between pandering and adding features to make your product appeal to additional consumers?


----------



## Taneras

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm not replying to Dannager any longer.  He's classified me as homophobic and is now talking about me in 3rd person.  The berating is ironic though.




I was labeled a troll earlier and accused of comparing the experiences of people being subject to false accusations to those who've experienced sexual assault, so don't feel too bad because its not just you.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm not replying to Dannager any longer.  He's classified me as homophobic and is now talking about me in 3rd person.  The berating is ironic though.




I'd talk about you in the second person but you keep telling me you're not saying anything to me.

Heck, I'd talk about you in the first person if you'd like, but honestly I'm not sure I'm capable of roleplaying you.


----------



## MechaPilot

Rygar said:


> You're apparently not familiar with Tumblr.  Facts,  Truth,  those things are not ideals Tumblr is well known for.  Tumblr is well known for factual incorrectness,  misrepresenting/skewing data,  and outright lies,  then when caught it was all "To start a conversation".
> 
> Anything on Tumblr should be immediately regarded as fiction.




He is not referencing tumblr.  He is referncing the OP of this thread.  Please read the words in the OP of this thread and not just the linked to material.  The OP of this thread (which is a different person from the one who created the linked to material) has claimed to have collected many stories of harassment and assault.  Additionally, there have been claims and examples of harassment and assault by members of this community (both in this thread and in the other harassment thread).


----------



## Dannager

Rygar said:


> You're apparently not familiar with Tumblr.  Facts,  Truth,  those things are not ideals Tumblr is well known for.  Tumblr is well known for factual incorrectness,  misrepresenting/skewing data,  and outright lies,  then when caught it was all "To start a conversation".
> 
> Anything on Tumblr should be immediately regarded as fiction.




This isn't a level-headed viewpoint. You can certainly believe that some things said on sites like Tumblr as facts may be suspect, but starting out with a default assumption of "People literally fabricated 3000 incidents of harassment just to start a conversation!" is just ridiculous.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> Serious question:
> 
> What is the difference between pandering and adding features to make your product appeal to additional consumers?




...and less appealing to others, which is me.  Not much really, since consumers today enjoy being pandered to and don't really consider purchases on an intellectual basis, i.e do I really need this?  I'm simply more discerning.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> ...and less appealing to others, which is me.  Not much really, since consumers today enjoy being pandered to and don't really consider purchases on an intellectual basis, i.e do I really need this?  I'm simply more discerning.




Oh my god


----------



## AWizardInDallas

Taneras said:


> I was labeled a troll earlier and accused of comparing the experiences of people being subject to false accusations to those who've experienced sexual assault, so don't feel too bad because its not just you.




Yeah, I saw that.  I'm aging and just don't wanna waste my time arguing with fools.


----------



## Taneras

AWizardInDallas said:


> ...and less appealing to others, which is me.  Not much really, since consumers today enjoy being pandered to and don't really consider purchases on an intellectual basis, i.e do I really need this?  I'm simply more discerning.




Do you mean the inclusion of certain demographics in any fashion is less appealing, or is it the manner in which its done that would make it less appealing?


----------



## Morrus

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm not replying to Dannager any longer.  He's classified me as homophobic and is now talking about me in 3rd person.  The berating is ironic though.




If you want to ignore somebody, either do so the old-fashioned way with your mind and sheer force of willpower, or the technical way with the Block feature. Please do not an announce it, and definitely do not continue to talk about it.


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> ...and less appealing to others, which is me.  Not much really, since consumers today enjoy being pandered to and don't really consider purchases on an intellectual basis, i.e do I really need this?  I'm simply more discerning.




You're making assumptions and judgments about the reasoning and decision-making of people you don't even know.  I don't feel that's fair, or intellectually honest for that matter, and I don't think you can accurately say that you are "more discerning" than people who simply choose to buy different products than you do.


----------



## AWizardInDallas

MechaPilot said:


> You're making assumptions and judgments about the reasoning and decision-making of people you don't even know.  I don't feel that's fair, or intellectually honest for that matter, and I don't think you can accurately say that you are "more discerning" than people who simply choose to buy different products than you do.




I'm allowed to judge for myself.  Don't like it, don't listen.


----------



## Dannager

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm allowed to judge for myself.  Don't like it, don't listen.




You're on a public forum. You are allowed to judge, and others are allowed to judge you, including them judging you for how you judge other people. That's how this works. You don't get to show up, judge a bunch of people, and then say "Don't judge me, I'm entitled to my own beliefs, you don't like it you can leave!"

Or are you of the opinion that judging is only okay when you're the one doing it?


----------



## MechaPilot

AWizardInDallas said:


> I'm allowed to judge for myself.  Don't like it, don't listen.




I didn't say that you weren't allowed to judge for yourself.  I merely questioned the accuracy of that judgement, and the basis on which it was made.


----------



## Maxperson

Elf Witch said:


> So the harasser wins. Because if the policy is to send anyone who complains about being groped or harassed home without proof then they will simply not report it. And the people doing the harassment will just keep it on the down low. Here is why this really makes me angry the person being harassed is not doing anything other than attending the event they have done nothing wrong so why should they be punished for reporting someone bothering them?




I'm not seeing how being asked to leave a convention is going to convince a woman who is already willing to come forward, not to come forward.  If it's genuine and she's willing to come forward, the fair consequence if being asked to leave is a blip.  I'm also only for the mutual eviction if there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused.  If there is, then she should not be asked to go.

If it's he said, she said, then both should go or neither should go.  Fair is fair.


----------



## Dannager

Maxperson said:


> I'm not seeing how being asked to leave a convention is going to convince a woman who is already willing to come forward, not to come forward.




We already have a problem with harassment being underreported. This will only make it worse. Many women would undoubtedly choose not to report even moderate harassment incidents because they don't want to deal with the disruption it might cause if they can't show evidence of it taking place.

Stop being concerned with what seems superficially "fair". It's time to start looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## MechaPilot

Max, Dann, while I agree that it's needed to figure out what would be a good policy when no evidence is available, I think it's far more preferable to try to improve the availability of evidence, which is why I suggested significant video coverage.


----------



## Dannager

MechaPilot said:


> Max, Dann, while I agree that it's needed to figure out what would be a good policy when no evidence is available, I think it's far more preferable to try to improve the availability of evidence, which is why I suggested significant video coverage.




This would certainly help, but it isn't enough on its own. Many places won't have them in place, coverage angles probably won't be ideal, audio will be lost in the noise of con halls which means this does little or nothing to address evidence of verbal harassment, etc. It's one step among many that needs to be taken.


----------



## Taneras

EDIT for some reason this post didn't appear after I posted it so I created the one below.  Sorry.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Stop being concerned with what seems superficially "fair". It's time to start looking at the bigger picture.




I know you've said your goal isn't to be fair, its to resolve conflict.  Why should convention management work to resolve conflicts?  And please don't tell me its because it's not fair (or any other related synonym) to the other participants that they've paid their ticket prices and are behaving properly to have to put up with harassment/disruptions.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Why should convention management work to resolve conflicts?




I'm surprised you need a reason for this, but I'll give you the simple and straightforward one: Event managers have a job to do, and that job involves making sure the event runs successfully. An event that is disrupted by conflict (no matter the kind) is not as successful as it could be. Therefore, in order to do their job, event managers must work to resolve conflicts when they arise.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> I'm not seeing how being asked to leave a convention is going to convince a woman who is already willing to come forward, not to come forward.  If it's genuine and she's willing to come forward, the fair consequence if being asked to leave is a blip.  I'm also only for the mutual eviction if there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused.  If there is, then she should not be asked to go.
> 
> If it's he said, she said, then both should go or neither should go.  Fair is fair.




Are you kidding me?  Seriously?  London (England) just started up a Report it To Stop It campaign last year.  Harassment reports have gone up FIVE TIMES since then, and they still think that it's a massively underreported issue.  Before the program, they were estimating some NINETY per cent of cases were going unreported.

And you want to put some schmuck who's been hired as security (if the con even has security) in charge of determining the validity of a harassment report?  What exactly constitutes "He said, she said"?  Must we have witnesses who will testify that he did it?  Video evidence?  Choirs of angels?  Good grief, that's ludicrous.

Look, it would suck to be falsely accused, but, y'know what?  Too bad.  The issue is so under reported anyway, that being reported is pretty much good enough.  Don't want to get reported?  Be careful not to be an  at a con.  Pretty bloody simple.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> I'm surprised you need a reason for this, but I'll give you the simple and straightforward one: Event managers have a job to do, and that job involves making sure the event runs successfully. An event that is disrupted by conflict (no matter the kind) is not as successful as it could be. Therefore, in order to do their job, event managers must work to resolve conflicts when they arise.




Considering that the person who came in here to tell us about why her and her friends were attempting to create an all female table top group painted the picture that the vast majority of the community was against it, that would seem like a successful event.  Would it not?  When you have the vast majority pleased with how things are currently being run, ignoring whether or not its being run right or wrong, that seems to point towards a successful event.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Considering that the person who came in here to tell us about why her and her friends were attempting to create an all female table top group painted the picture that the vast majority of the community was against it, that would seem like a successful event.  Would it not?  When you have the vast majority pleased with how things are currently being run, ignoring whether or not its being run right or wrong, that seems to point towards a successful event.




What?

This is about _resolving conflict_. The best way to resolve the conflict we're talking about is to remove the person accused of harassment from the event. That's all. This holds true whether it's from the perspective of the event manager/coordinator/organizer, the person being harassed, or the community at large. The only person who whom the situation is less than ideal is the person accused of harassment, and that's just how things have to be.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> Are you kidding me?  Seriously?  London (England) just started up a Report it To Stop It campaign last year.  Harassment reports have gone up FIVE TIMES since then, and they still think that it's a massively underreported issue.  Before the program, they were estimating some NINETY per cent of cases were going unreported.
> 
> And you want to put some schmuck who's been hired as security (if the con even has security) in charge of determining the validity of a harassment report?  What exactly constitutes "He said, she said"?  Must we have witnesses who will testify that he did it?  Video evidence?  Choirs of angels?  Good grief, that's ludicrous.
> 
> Look, it would suck to be falsely accused, but, y'know what?  Too bad.  The issue is so under reported anyway, that being reported is pretty much good enough.  Don't want to get reported?  Be careful not to be an  at a con.  Pretty bloody simple.




To be fair he's doing his best to twist into a pretzel by trying to remain fair and abide by the standards some have provided here.

Imagine if the police in England, after receiving a harassment claim and with no other evidence then the claim itself, would show up and force the accused to leave.

Or maybe they are?  I don't know because I've never been to England.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> What?
> 
> This is about _resolving conflict_. The best way to resolve the conflict we're talking about is to remove the person accused of harassment from the event. That's all. This holds true whether it's from the perspective of the event manager/coordinator/organizer, the person being harassed, or the community at large. The only person who whom the situation is less than ideal is the person accused of harassment, and that's just how things have to be.




You told me the reason behind the attempts at resolution was to have a successful convention.

What if 60% of the people at a convention do not want to allow a woman only table top session, 30% didn't care either way, and 10% wanted to allow it, and the 60% got their way (preventing women only sessions), is the convention a success?


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> You told me the reason behind the attempts at resolution was to have a successful convention.
> 
> What if 60% of the people at a convention do not want to allow a woman only table top session, 30% didn't care either way, and 10% wanted to allow it, and the 60% got their way (preventing women only sessions), is the convention a success?




The guidelines I described are for resolving harassment claims. I'm not sure what you're trying to show, here.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Taneras said:


> Considering that the person who came in here to tell us about why her and her friends were attempting to create an all female table top group painted the picture that the vast majority of the community was against it, that would seem like a successful event.  Would it not?  When you have the vast majority pleased with how things are currently being run, ignoring whether or not its being run right or wrong, that seems to point towards a successful event.




I was THAT person, and I never said the vast majority of the community was against it. ONE very vocal jerk opposed it, rewrote my words, a few offered HIM passive support, the VAST majority stayed silent, while the silent supporters of the one vocal person boycotted my events, BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO DISRUPT THE event to address the issue. Better to isolate the victim and let the harrassers stay and we can sort the facts afterwards. Since that was the case, raising hell myself at that point would have compounded my problems.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> The guidelines I described are for resolving harassment claims.




Yes, with the goal of resolving these claims being a successful convention.  Which brought me to that question dealing with whether or not a convention was successful or not.



Dannager said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to show, here.




60% of the people at a convention do not want to allow a woman only table top session, 30% didn't care either way, and 10% wanted to allow it, and the 60% got their way (preventing women only sessions), is the convention a success?

This is a simple question.  I think you're smart enough to understand where this is going and are refusing to answer because you don't want to inject a concept you've been railing against for 20+ pages (fairness/justice/whatever you want to label it) in an attempt to defend the 10% who want female only tables.


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> I was THAT person, and I never said the vast majority of the community was against it. ONE very vocal jerk opposed it, rewrote my words, a few offered HIM passive support, the VAST majority stayed silent, while the silent supporters of the one vocal person boycotted my events, BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO DISRUPT THE event to address the issue. Better to isolate the victim and let the harrassers stay and we can sort the facts afterwards. Since that was the case, raising hell myself at that point would have compounded my problems.




My mistake, I was wrong.  I thought I had read that the silent people were still against it but remained silent.  Thanks for the correction.  Still, though, that doesn't affect my hypothetical question as it's hypothetical and not a reflection of an actual event.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Taneras said:


> My mistake, I was wrong.  I thought I had read that the silent people were still against it but remained silent.  Thanks for the correction.  Still, though, that doesn't affect my hypothetical question as it's hypothetical and not a reflection of an actual event.




Yes please do stay with the hypotheticals with offering no opinion with an actual current event. Therein lies the problem, while people are arguing against disruption, dwelling on theoreticals actual people are being actually harassed into leaving a hobby that ,sorry perhaps my training in theater inspired a greater passion more quickly than is wont,but I truly do love and will miss. It is painful to know I may never be able to play again. So now you are not talking hypotheticals and when you misquote me to support your hypothetical you did the exact same thing the one hostile jerk did. Instead of facing real current suffering you hide in theoreticals. Please continue I won't burst your bubble.


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> Yes please do stay with the hypotheticals with offering no opinion with an actual current event.




I said this a while ago (Post #378).



Taneras said:


> I'm sorry for your experience, and the experiences of the women you're speaking about.  It's not acceptable and I do think something needs to be done.  I agree, our hobby isn't about excluding groups of people based off characteristics they cannot control (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).  And I'm pretty sure most of the people who are being told that we're part of the problem in this thread feel the same way.  My current group has two women in it and honestly its a bit more enjoyable than my previous all male groups as they bring different personalities and perspectives to the table.
> 
> That said, I think we need to focus on behavior and not gender here.  Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of gender.  Lets focus to reduce bad behavior and not focus on genders, races, ages, sexual orientations, or anything of that sort.






Jeanneliza said:


> and when you misquote me to support your hypothetical you did the exact same thing the one hostile jerk did.




The misquote wasn't intentional I simply misread and I don't appreciate the condemning tone.  I didn't do the exact same thing as that one jerk, I have no issue with all women tables at all.  I simply misread something you typed, that doesn't make me a bad person.


----------



## Jeanneliza

So tell me then how do I address the bad behavior here without getting labeled a drama queen or attention seeker? How do I do this and ignore the fact that all those behind this were of one gender, and those who were shut out of a game or too intimidated to participate, or felt it was just not worth playing there once it was made clear by even a few they were not WANTED there were a different gender? How do I ignore the fact in defending myself that his argument was that by merely offering a single womens game with the pre-approval or the organizers, that I was painting a picture of the community as toxic/unsafe and that women needed a safe place? When not once in the over the year I have been active there have I ever said or suggested such a thing? Those were HIS words not mine.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannager said:


> This would certainly help, but it isn't enough on its own. Many places won't have them in place, coverage angles probably won't be ideal, audio will be lost in the noise of con halls which means this does little or nothing to address evidence of verbal harassment, etc. It's one step among many that needs to be taken.




As I see it, the only way to lessen the problem is to make sure the people who harass/assault others are caught.  That means collecting proof, and that means cameras and microphones, and increased security.

Outside of A) enabling collection of proof, B) having an on-site police presence so complaints of sexual assault (and other crimes) can be dealt with directly by authorities, and C) spreading awareness about the issue so that female attendees know the risks, we really do have to rely on the community policing itself by doing the things that I described earlier:

1) Don't harass or assault people yourself.

2) Be more alert for those who are harassing or assaulting others.

3) If you see/hear harassment or assault, do not tolerate it in your presence.

4) Cooperate with security/police when they ask you about harassment or an assault that you may have witnessed.  If you didn't witness it, make sure you tell the security/police officer that you "didn't see it," not that it "didn't happen."


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> So tell me then how do I address the bad behavior here without getting labeled a drama queen or attention seeker?




Unfortunately you can't, you'll never convince 100% of any community that's this large.  This is going to sound incredibly sappy and lame but just do your best.  Ask others to help you.  Perhaps you missed it but I've stated that I'm going to be trying to encourage people to speak out and report incidents even if it didn't happen to them.  So you've raised awareness with me.



Jeanneliza said:


> How do I do this and ignore the fact that all those behind this were of one gender




Maybe I'm misquoting again, and if I am I'm sorry.  But didn't you say that out of the 200 or 300 only five or six were female?  The group that you've labeled "all those behind this" was also a small amount of people.  It's no coincidence that if you have the vast majority of a large event be male (95+%) that if you pick out 5 or 10 that they'll all be male.  Maybe even if you had a 50/50 split in genders you'd still end up with only males disagreeing with all female tables but I doubt that.  Demographics don't all think alike and I'm sure there would be some females that might be against the idea of limiting a table to whats between your legs.  Likewise, I'm sure there were plenty of males there that had no issue with an all woman's table, but just didn't speak up.  And that's not giving them a pass, they should have spoke up about it if that's how they felt.  I'm just pointing out that that "one gender" was also likely in support of you - they should have just said so.

That said, there's nothing wrong with simply labeling the gender/race/age/whatever of the people who harassed you out of the event.  You're labeling those people as male didn't bother me.  My issue with gender had to do with the original article.



Jeanneliza said:


> How do I ignore the fact in defending myself that his argument was that by merely offering a single womens game with the pre-approval or the organizers, that I was painting a picture of the community as toxic/unsafe and that women needed a safe place? When not once in the over the year I have been active there have I ever said or suggested such a thing? Those were HIS words not mine.




I gotcha, I'm with you 100%.  I don't think women wanting to have their own table top group suggests that the community is toxic/unsafe, it could be any number of reasons and honestly I don't think yall should have even needed to explain your reasons in the first place.  It should have been an automatic yes.


----------



## Lehrbuch

AWizardInDallas said:


> This adoption snowballs into my own preferences, my game world, and my own acting ability at the table.  For example, I'm incapable of role-playing a transgender person.  Worse, I might buy an adventure and discover that the mayor of town X has been scripted as Y lifestyle so now I'm forced to play a lifestyle not only alien to me, but unsettling to me on a personal level... and if I "do it wrong" I cause offense.




I'm struggling to see what the great difficulty is with role-playing, say, a transgender (N)PC. We are trying to role-play a complete persona. Which depending on our own preferences it might be a more or less complete or detailed persona, but it certainly will be a whole lot more than just gender identification. 

I suppose a transgender (N)PC might have some goals around accessing polymorph magic, but not necessarily. Otherwise she should have the same sorts of goals, motivations, reactions as any other (N)PC, which depend on background, alignment, and circumstance. Role-playing a transgender (N)PC is not really any different to role-playing a cisgender one.

To use your example, if you are role-playing the transgender mayor of town X, then her political goals and alliances, loyalty to her town, tolerance for corruption, and so forth are not really going to be any different are they?


----------



## Myrdin Potter

I think the main points have been made here, and much of the discussion is going around in circles with the same few people.

1) harassment is bad and policies addressing it do not have to be fair and reach criminal standards of innocent until proven guilty.  A credible accusation can enough to take action and removing the person from the con is reasonable action.

2) there is a small but not zero chance that such a policy can be abused, but the risk is worth the result

3) the goal is not to fix the world, rather to make cons and gaming stores safer places to play games.

4) the conversation here has been remarkably polite for this type of topic and that is one of the two ways to change the world, and I applaud even the posters I disagree with.  (The other way to change the world is applied violence and the does not really work in an online forum).

5) even I who am quite pro remove even with accusation only respect the concerns of those here that worry about the edge cases where abuse might happen


----------



## Neonchameleon

AWizardInDallas said:


> ...and less appealing to others, which is me.  Not much really, since consumers today enjoy being pandered to and don't really consider purchases on an intellectual basis, i.e do I really need this?  I'm simply more discerning.




"Discerning". A useful word. I'll have to teach it to a four year old I know who refuses to eat anything that isn't smothered in ketchup so it tastes the same as everything else to say that he's discerning. And that he considers what he eats on an intellectual basis and doesn't actually need variety in what he eats - just that it has enough nutrients. And that he can complain that other people are being pandered to whenever the mother tries to put something spicy or full of garlic or even crisp on the table.


----------



## Ace

Elf Witch said:


> You realize that it is not just Gamer gurrl as you call us complain about being harassed so have people of color and LGBTQ people. This is not just about women it is about protecting everyone right to not be harassed at an event and that includes straight white guys as well.




Kind of a straw man argument,  No one here is suggesting that and I in fact said the exact opposite, that a Con  ought to have a written policy. 



Elf Witch said:


> If someone reports a case of harassment then it is the duty of the people to address it. If they have no evidence because no one saw it then they can warn the person to stay away from the person making the complaint and keep a closer eye on him.




No disagreement here . its pretty much what I said.



Elf Witch said:


> I am really tired of the excuse that harassers don't know better and are socially awkward. I used to be shy and socially awkward but I knew touching someone without their permission was wrong I knew calling out nasty things to them was wrong and I knew that when someone asked me to stop bothering them that I should.




Again not what I said, harassment has to be properly defined and I have no issue stopping it . However it usually caused buy the people in the hobby who in fact do have poor social skills or autism or the like.   A Cat P*ss man and Cat P*ss women is a stereotype for a reason. That said we don't in principle disagree, if peopel can't keep it together, kick them out.  




Elf Witch said:


> So being inclusive and accepting diversity in our hobby is ruing the fun? So darn those women and minorities for wanting to be included in the fun and maybe if people would just allow them to have fun too without bullying there would be no need to beat on the drum.




At a Con, its up to the organizers to determine who they want.  This is not my choice to make since i won't be attending but when they make the call if they'll have to way the chance that pursing one agenda keeps people with different views away.

 In any case Cons are not full of newbs just waiting to join our dorky hobby , everyone knows what D&D is and being welcoming won't accomplish anything. Its not a useful goal in and off itself, homogeneity is strength, not diversity 

That said race and creed are no bar and more smart gamers are always welcome at my table.  The problem to me is SJW entryism not race and creed . You see this isn't about Cons where there is a legitimate reason to have a standard but its about directing the gaming hobby, its products and identity the way they like. The long march is action. 

Personally I've gamed with very diverse groups, gay/straight male/female 4 or 5 different religions multiple races all at once.  It was very cool. 

But here is the thing it was NOT inclusive at all. It was a monoculture, all of us gamers interested in the same sort of gaming. That is why it worked,  because roots and bones it wasn't diverse, 

If this means me not allowing any person or group  that doesn't fit at my table so be it. Its not your problem, the hobbies problem,  its not a problem at  all .

 However if you personally think its an issue, put an add online, start a group and go play. If I was at your table, I'll play by your rules.gladly. Keep in mind I love  Blue Rose who knows it might work

And if it doesn't, you'd be right to kick me out. No hard feelings.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=944]Ace[/MENTION] - this isn't about home games. This is about public spaces. Always has been. So why are you talking about home games?

Now, if I want my group to be a dudes club and I want to revel in Golden Age fantasy tropes with all the bigotry and misogyny that entails, more power to me. 

But, in public spaces?  In game books that are meant for general consumption?  Not a bloody chance. No way. It's completely unacceptable.


----------



## ehren37

AWizardInDallas said:


> Ugh.  I was asked to elaborate.  I did that.  I recently dropped the published game world I was using and am indeed using my own material.




Yes, you dropped Pathfinder because they published material featuring "teh gays". But you TOTALLY arent homophobic. You just prefer everyone to be straight and white... to the point that you cant stomach even changing material that isnt.


----------



## Elf Witch

AWizardInDallas said:


> Yep, which is what I meant earlier by pandering.




So if game designers make products that fit what you want this is business but if they make products that other people want that is pandering? You can't see what is wrong with that? Tell me if a restaurant what has never served vegetarian meals decides that they want to start serving them to attract more customers is that pandering or just good business practices?




Taneras said:


> I disagree that a dongle joke (I have a big dongle - I believe was the effect of the joke) is comparative to a racist joke making fun of black people.
> 
> So what about my kitchen joke that I might have made to my wife.  That's one of my original examples that you said I was over reacting about.  Couldn't that be seen as a sexist joke?  Couldn't that make a female, or even a male, uncomfortable?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm concerned about a knee jerking reaction that creates overboard policies that include what I've already mentioned.  And I don't think that I'm being paranoid because I've already seen it happen with some of my other hobbies/interests.  Atheism, for example, has issues with it.  For the record I'm not trying to derail and discuss religion, I have no issue with personal supernatural beliefs so long as everyone's rights are respected.  But some atheist conventions have gotten that bad, even canceling certain speakers, for petty comments.  In an attempt to create a safer and more friendly space, they've gone overboard with super strict policies that have honestly created more problems than they have solved.
> 
> I think there's a way to create policies that don't over reach.  And I hope that's what's done.  I'd hate to be asked to leave an event because of a joke I made with my wife or I uttered the word "crazy".
> 
> 
> 
> That's the definition of sexism, creating different standards of behavior for each gender.  I don't think what's between your legs should have any bearing on what you're allowed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Then its probably a very small store operated environment.  I can't imagine this would occur at a large convention.  Has it?
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree 100%, I'd have no issue with a woman wanting to run an all female table top campaign so long as we apply the same standards to men.




Some women are uncomfortable listening to men talk about their penis in a sexual manner some men are too. When you are in a public place you need to be aware that you share that space without people. If I am at event sitting behind someone at a panel or a gaming table and they start making sexual jokes and I become uncomfortable  it should be okay for me to ask them to stop. And if they don't then I need to bring in someone in charge. Here is why you ,can't make a case that if you can't talk about the size of your penis the event is going to be ruined for you but you could be ruining the event for me. 

I actually had something similar happen to me I was in a restaurant with a friend who had just buried her infant daughter. The guys behind us were making dead baby jokes normally I don't care about jokes like that. I asked them very politely to stop explaining the situation and they got all butt hurt and started getting louder. So I went to the manager to ask to be moved. Since there was no open seats and our food was coming out he went to the table to ask them to stop and when they got nasty with him he threw them out. 

 You make a joke with your wife and it is overheard the situation then depends on where are you sitting was it heard in passing are you all at a gaming table together sitting next to each other in a panel. I can't think of any con committee that is going to step in over a joke like that heard in passing if they do it would simply be to ask you to watch your comments.  Now if you are sort of trapped together and the other people make it clear that they are uncomfortable and ask you to stop and you don't that is harassment.  Again for the same reason you don't need to make jokes like that to enjoy the event. Though I think most people understand the difference between two people joking and some sexist idiot using get back into the kitchen as a way to silence a woman who is stating her opinion.   

Actually the definition of sexism is more than that. But what you keep refusing to see is this as long as inequality exist you sometimes have to make exceptions for the group facing the inequality. As I keep saying women are in the minority of gaming because of that you may have to make exceptions like an all female game. If you had a group of newbies and a DM wanted to run a game only for them I doubt people would protest why because there would be plenty of other games for experienced players to find to play in. 

You keep saying that you want to prevent a knee jerk reaction but you keep coming up with examples that are examples of knee jerk reaction.

BTW how is it unfair if an event has 60 games running and only 1 is female only? How is that putting out any male player at all? If someone said we are going to have 60 games and 1 table only for gays. or 1 table only for men I don't think most people would make a fuss. I am sure some would because they made a fuss over 1 game out of 60. 



Rygar said:


> You're apparently not familiar with Tumblr.  Facts,  Truth,  those things are not ideals Tumblr is well known for.  Tumblr is well known for factual incorrectness,  misrepresenting/skewing data,  and outright lies,  then when caught it was all "To start a conversation".
> 
> Anything on Tumblr should be immediately regarded as fiction.




And you ignoring all the other places including the Washington Post where this has been discussed. You are basically calling the women and men here on Enworld liars too. 



Maxperson said:


> I'm not seeing how being asked to leave a convention is going to convince a woman who is already willing to come forward, not to come forward.  If it's genuine and she's willing to come forward, the fair consequence if being asked to leave is a blip.  I'm also only for the mutual eviction if there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused.  If there is, then she should not be asked to go.
> 
> If it's he said, she said, then both should go or neither should go.  Fair is fair.




Seriously let me ask you this some person steals your wallet and you go to report it and by the time con security and the police catch up with the thief he no longer has it and no one saw him take it but you how would you feel after having your wallet stolen  you get kicked out of the event? Fair is fair right? What about your daughter or son coming up to you and tell you that they have been groped by an adult but they can't prove it are you okay with your family getting kicked out? Fair is Fair right?



Jeanneliza said:


> Yes please do stay with the hypotheticals with offering no opinion with an actual current event. Therein lies the problem, while people are arguing against disruption, dwelling on theoreticals actual people are being actually harassed into leaving a hobby that ,sorry perhaps my training in theater inspired a greater passion more quickly than is wont,but I truly do love and will miss. It is painful to know I may never be able to play again. So now you are not talking hypotheticals and when you misquote me to support your hypothetical you did the exact same thing the one hostile jerk did. Instead of facing real current suffering you hide in theoreticals. Please continue I won't burst your bubble.




I don't know if it is possible to actually discuss this with this him he is so wrapped up in hypothetical situations that he can't see the forest for the trees. I have been trying for pages. I am really sorry this happened to you. I left gaming because of crap like this back in the 80s and didn't come back for ten years. I have left a lot of geek groups because of the sheer hate directed at me because of my gender. I am a huge comic book fan but I got tired of having to justify my presence to the gatekeepers wanted me to prove my geek cred. 

I made the mistake of sharing on my twitter a quote that Emma Watson shared that Alan Rickman had said that meant a lot to her after his death and my feed was slammed by angry cis white males calling me names, wishing death and rape and all kinds of nasty things on me. And not learning my lesson I shared on twitter that I was looking forward to the new Ghostbuster movie and hoped it would be good. Again my twitter feed was filed with angry cis white men and I was told I needed to die and other horrible things over a frakking movie. Which is why I have not said a peep about the Star Wars movie because these angry white man have won I know I am not welcome. And what really burns my butt is this I am older than a llot of them I have been into geek hobbies longer than some have been alive.

And no I don't blame all cis white males only the ones doing it. My son is a cis white male and he hates these jerks almost as much as I do. 



Jeanneliza said:


> So tell me then how do I address the bad behavior here without getting labeled a drama queen or attention seeker? How do I do this and ignore the fact that all those behind this were of one gender, and those who were shut out of a game or too intimidated to participate, or felt it was just not worth playing there once it was made clear by even a few they were not WANTED there were a different gender? How do I ignore the fact in defending myself that his argument was that by merely offering a single womens game with the pre-approval or the organizers, that I was painting a picture of the community as toxic/unsafe and that women needed a safe place? When not once in the over the year I have been active there have I ever said or suggested such a thing? Those were HIS words not mine.




I wish I could answer this for you and it truly saddens me that this is still going on. I wrote in the other thread that back in the days of first edition I was playing in a game at a store when the DM decided to have my PC raped an dexpected me role play it out. I tried to reason with him explaining how uncomfortable I was and he mocked me and I ended up crying and this made a few of the guys at the table leave others joined him in making fun of me. Th upshot was I was banned from the store for disrupting the game. I am cannot believe some thirty years later this crap is still happening to women.


----------



## ehren37

MechaPilot said:


> Serious question:
> 
> What is the difference between pandering and adding features to make your product appeal to additional consumers?




Its pandering it it's not to a white dude, duh.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannager said:


> We already have a problem with harassment being underreported. This will only make it worse. Many women would undoubtedly choose not to report even moderate harassment incidents because they don't want to deal with the disruption it might cause if they can't show evidence of it taking place.
> 
> Stop being concerned with what seems superficially "fair". It's time to start looking at the bigger picture.




It's more than about fairness, and it's far from superficial.  False accusations are criminal in many cases, as in every case where someone is at risk of criminal prosecution.  That's not something to be swept under the rug.

When I was in my early 20's, a woman I lived with who is also a gamer, accused me of assault and battery.  Apparently she thought that she could just not prosecute, so she called the police.  Well, O.J. happened and the law was changed so that it wasn't up to the woman any longer.  This was on the 4th of July and the 5th was a Friday.  I spent 4 days in jail waiting for Monday to come along all because a woman decided to falsely accuse me of something I didn't do.

Don't tell me that it's superficially fair to even things up in order to discourage that from happening to someone else.  A woman who was really assaulted will be more likely to accuse the perpetrator with that fairness in place, then a woman who is going to falsely accuse a man.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Jeanneliza said:


> How do I ignore the fact in defending myself that his argument was that by merely offering a single womens game with the pre-approval or the organizers, that I was painting a picture of the community as toxic/unsafe and that women needed a safe place?




Certainly, if I was a con-organiser and I was asked to provide a woman's only game, it would be natural for me to check whether this was because women felt the open games were un-safe/toxic. As, of course, if that was the case I would want to do something about it. 

However, the possibility that others (i.e. men) might ask themselves whether or not this special game session says something about how women feel about the community, is no reason to refuse the game session. 

As an academic, I am sometimes involved in organising academic conferences. Even though the conferences are open to all, we frequently have special social events for various groups: "women", "PhD students", "alumini of particular institutions", etc. This doesn't imply that "women", or the other categories are discriminated against in the open events. The special events are just an opportunity for people to meet and socialise and talk with others of similar interests and experiences.

So, having a woman's only game, should not be any more controversial than having say "a 4E game", or "a game for out-of-town visitors to the con", or "a game for under 18 year olds", or "a game where all the PCs are elves", etc. Providing an opportunity for women to play a game together at a con seems like a truly excellent idea to me.

In fact, having a woman's only event really paints the opposite picture of the con. A woman's only session is advertising that a) there are enough women attending to make this worthwhile, and b) that the con is thoughtfully providing opportunities for women gamers to meet and play games together.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Max, Dann, while I agree that it's needed to figure out what would be a good policy when no evidence is available, I think it's far more preferable to try to improve the availability of evidence, which is why I suggested significant video coverage.




I'm conflicted.  On one hand, I want things made safer for women.  On the other hand, I really dislike big brother looking over my shoulder.  This country has already lost too many freedoms in the name of safety.  Freedom has costs, which could include me.

Maybe cameras could be made available to women who want them and they could be given a sign warning people that being around them at the convention means that they are being taped.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Are you kidding me?




No.



> Seriously?




Yes



> London (England) just started up a Report it To Stop It campaign last year.  Harassment reports have gone up FIVE TIMES since then, and they still think that it's a massively underreported issue.  Before the program, they were estimating some NINETY per cent of cases were going unreported.




Great!  Do something like that, but either don't kick anyone out without evidence, or kick them both out.  



> And you want to put some schmuck who's been hired as security (if the con even has security) in charge of determining the validity of a harassment report?  What exactly constitutes "He said, she said"?  Must we have witnesses who will testify that he did it?  Video evidence?  Choirs of angels?  Good grief, that's ludicrous.




So call the police and let the cops sort it out.  No need to get hired security involved at all.  It's actually better that way.  If someone is going to make a false accusation, let's make it a crime and get them to fill out a false police report.



> Look, it would suck to be falsely accused, but, y'know what?  Too bad.  The issue is so under reported anyway, that being reported is pretty much good enough.  Don't want to get reported?  Be careful not to be an  at a con.  Pretty bloody simple.




Eh, no.  Women don't get a free pass in being on potentially criminal acts just because someone is a jerk.


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> It's more than about fairness, and it's far from superficial.  False accusations are criminal in many cases, as in every case where someone is at risk of criminal prosecution.  That's not something to be swept under the rug.
> 
> When I was in my early 20's, a woman I lived with who is also a gamer, accused me of assault and battery.  Apparently she thought that she could just not prosecute, so she called the police.  Well, O.J. happened and the law was changed so that it wasn't up to the woman any longer.  This was on the 4th of July and the 5th was a Friday.  I spent 4 days in jail waiting for Monday to come along all because a woman decided to falsely accuse me of something I didn't do.
> 
> Don't tell me that it's superficially fair to even things up in order to discourage that from happening to someone else.  A woman who was really assaulted will be more likely to accuse the perpetrator with that fairness in place, then a woman who is going to falsely accuse a man.




First let me say I am very sorry that happened to you. 

And I firmly support if some is caught making a false accusation that they be kicked out and banned for life. 

But what you are suggesting is not fair. I was groped in an elevator at a con when I was 18 he had me pushed against the wall and had his hands painfully shoved up me. I was terrified I was going to get raped and since it was only two years since I had been raped I was suffering PTSD from the assault. There were no cameras in the elevator and we were alone. I did report it and was told then knew he did things like that but they would keep a closer eye on him. Now tell me what if they had decided to kick me out for that. That I would be the one punished because I didn't just take it and keep my mouth shut. In what world do you live is that in any way fair?

I keep saying that at least at the Worldcon they don't kick people out without proof they get a warning and they try and keep an eye out for them. If something happened like what happened with me today they would bring the police in because a crime had been allegedly committed.


----------



## Maxperson

Elf Witch said:


> But what you are suggesting is not fair. I was groped in an elevator at a con when I was 18 he had me pushed against the wall and had his hands painfully shoved up me. I was terrified I was going to get raped and since it was only two years since I had been raped I was suffering PTSD from the assault. There were no cameras in the elevator and we were alone. I did report it and was told *then knew he did things like that but they would keep a closer eye on him.* Now tell me what if they had decided to kick me out for that. That I would be the one punished because I didn't just take it and keep my mouth shut. In what world do you live is that in away fair?




I'm really sorry that happened to you.  The bolded part is what gets me, though.  If they knew he did things like that, he shouldn't have been anywhere near there.  That sort of crap ticks me off.  In that circumstance, there was more going on than a simple he said, she said and no you shouldn't have been kicked out.


----------



## cmad1977

Maxperson said:


> I'm really sorry that happened to you.  The bolded part is what gets me, though.  If they knew he did things like that, he shouldn't have been anywhere near there.  That sort of crap ticks me off.  In that circumstance, there was more going on than a simple he said, she said and no you shouldn't have been kicked out.




But really.. How can you trust her? She's 'alone in an elevator'. That's a perfect 'he said, she said' situation. False accusations happen all the time! Hell, she's probably making all this up to garner attention.


----------



## Maxperson

cmad1977 said:


> But really.. How can you trust her? She's 'alone in an elevator'. That's a perfect 'he said, she said' situation. False accusations happen all the time! Hell, she's probably making all this up to garner attention.




Do you have anything of relevance to add to the discussion?


----------



## cmad1977

Maxperson said:


> Do you have anything of relevance to add to the discussion?




I simply don't want anyone kicked out of a con when there's no evidence of a 'crime'.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Maxperson said:


> Maybe cameras could be made available to women who want them and they could be given a sign warning people that being around them at the convention means that they are being taped.




Although I can see that you didn't intend it in this way, I don't think that setting women up to be stigmatised is really going to help. 

If a man fears being falsely accused of harassment, at a con, then the man should make sure he is never alone in a room with a woman (or alone with a group of women), and the man can wear a body-cam and a sign warning other men and women in his proximity that they are being taped.


----------



## Maxperson

cmad1977 said:


> I simply don't want anyone kicked out of a con when there's no evidence of a 'crime'.




If the person is known to the staff for just that sort of behavior, it is unlikely that someone is going to coincidentally be making a false accusation about him.  Known behavior of that sort is enough "evidence" for me to be okay with kicking someone out if he's accused again.  Really, though, he shouldn't have been allowed back in the first place.


----------



## Maxperson

Lehrbuch said:


> Although I can see that you didn't intend it in this way, I don't think that setting women up to be stigmatised is really going to help.




I can see that. 



> If a man fears being falsely accused of harassment, at a con, then the man should make sure he is never alone in a room with a woman (or alone with a group of women), and the man can wear a body-cam and a sign warning other men and women in his proximity that they are being taped.




A man should never have to fear being falsely accused.  Your solution also works both ways.  It can equally be applied to women as, "If a woman fears being assaulted by men, she should not be alone with one or a group of men."

Neither "solution" is a solution.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> I'm conflicted.  On one hand, I want things made safer for women.  On the other hand, I really dislike big brother looking over my shoulder.  This country has already lost too many freedoms in the name of safety.  Freedom has costs, which could include me.
> 
> Maybe cameras could be made available to women who want them and they could be given a sign warning people that being around them at the convention means that they are being taped.




I don't see being recorded in a public place as a loss of freedom: the very nature of being in public means not having privacy while you are in public.  The presence of cameras in public places just means that there are unflinching observers who can bear unbiased witness to what they saw.  I wouldn't want them in the bathrooms, but I have worked in retail and fast food enough to have no problem with being on-camera while in public.

Also, I don't think the cameras and signs for women who want them idea would go over so well.  For one thing, if I were offered such a thing I would automatically assume the event I was attending was not safe to attend and would leave (retaining my dignity and the sanctity of my person is more valuable to me than the sunk costs of attendance would be).  Secondly, the signs would quite likely cause those with the cameras & signs to become pariahs at the event.  Imagine if you were at a table and a woman with a camera and sign also sat at that table to play.  If you would have second thoughts about playing with a wired woman at the table, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that such a woman might be asked to leave many tables because she was making the other players (or the DMs) uncomfortable?


----------



## Rygar

MechaPilot said:


> He is not referencing tumblr.  He is referncing the OP of this thread.  Please read the words in the OP of this thread and not just the linked to material.  The OP of this thread (which is a different person from the one who created the linked to material) has claimed to have collected many stories of harassment and assault.  Additionally, there have been claims and examples of harassment and assault by members of this community (both in this thread and in the other harassment thread).




I strongly suspect the OP of the thread is a part of the social justice warrior community on Tumblr,  because he's linking to a social justice warrior article on Tumblr.  Which brings me back to:  Tumblr is not a place you go to when you want facts or the truth.

It's also important to note,  it is not uncommon to find the tumblr community defining harassment as "Anyone who disagrees with what I believe is harassing me!".

If we're going to assert that there's a problem and it is imperative that we fix it,  we need something a great deal more credible than Tumblr and its community.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> I don't see being recorded in a public place as a loss of freedom: the very nature of being in public means not having privacy while you are in public.  The presence of cameras in public places just means that there are unflinching observers who can bear unbiased witness to what they saw.  I wouldn't want them in the bathrooms, but I have worked in retail and fast food enough to have no problem with being on-camera while in public.




You don't pay much attention to the cases against cops and high profile criminal defendants, do you.  That unflinching observer is often subjected to enough scrutiny by lawyers that the juries rule against what it appears to show.


----------



## Hussar

Let's not forget too that the overwhelming majority of public play isn't at major venues like Gen Con where you have tens of thousands of attendees. Most cons are a couple of hundred people, many of which know each other. 

Now you're expecting someone to make unbiased judgements about harassment issues with someone they are, in many cases, either friends with or at least acquaintances. Yeah, that's not going to happen.  [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s experience is far more likely. Expecting a Con runner to be unbiased when the person being accused may very well be someone who spends significant money in the Con runner's game shop is a stretch to say the least. Even expecting him to call the police is unlikely. 

Is it fair?  Nope. Unfortunately bad things are going to happen to the wrong people. But, again, we have to go with the numbers. If 90% of harassment is being unreported, we cannot make it more difficult to report and get action.

Hey, I'm not unsympathetic. I walked away from a volunteer position because of this kind of crap. Totally get why you're so focused on fairness. But it's just not going to happen.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Let's not forget too that the overwhelming majority of public play isn't at major venues like Gen Con where you have tens of thousands of attendees. Most cons are a couple of hundred people, many of which know each other.
> 
> Now you're expecting someone to make unbiased judgements about harassment issues with someone they are, in many cases, either friends with or at least acquaintances. Yeah, that's not going to happen. [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s experience is far more likely. Expecting a Con runner to be unbiased when the person being accused may very well be someone who spends significant money in the Con runner's game shop is a stretch to say the least. Even expecting him to call the police is unlikely.
> 
> Is it fair?  Nope. Unfortunately bad things are going to happen to the wrong people. But, again, we have to go with the numbers. If 90% of harassment is being unreported, we cannot make it more difficult to report and get action.




Pretty sure I covered all of that by saying, "Call the police."


----------



## MechaPilot

Rygar said:


> I strongly suspect the OP of the thread is a part of the social justice warrior community on Tumblr,  because he's linking to a social justice warrior article on Tumblr.  Which brings me back to:  Tumblr is not a place you go to when you want facts or the truth.
> 
> It's also important to note,  it is not uncommon to find the tumblr community defining harassment as "Anyone who disagrees with what I believe is harassing me!".
> 
> If we're going to assert that there's a problem and it is imperative that we fix it,  we need something a great deal more credible than Tumblr and its community.




I don't share your opinion of the OP.  As I read it, the OP was inspired to ask questions by the linked to material: I know that I was similarly inspired to ask questions.  The linked to material is certainly inflammatory and overly general, but I know that in my case reading it caused me to pause and ask people I know who attend cons about the problem, not to immediately judge people (after all, the vast majority of gamers who I've met and played with have been decent people).

I think it does the whole discussion of harassment and assault, and how to reduce incidents of same, a disservice to ignore that discussion because it was initiated by people who started to question things after reading an article that quite obviously could have been phrased better.


----------



## Dannager

Myrdin Potter said:


> I think the main points have been made here, and much of the discussion is going around in circles with the same few people.
> 
> 1) harassment is bad and policies addressing it do not have to be fair and reach criminal standards of innocent until proven guilty.  A credible accusation can enough to take action and removing the person from the con is reasonable action.
> 
> 2) there is a small but not zero chance that such a policy can be abused, but the risk is worth the result
> 
> 3) the goal is not to fix the world, rather to make cons and gaming stores safer places to play games.
> 
> 4) the conversation here has been remarkably polite for this type of topic and that is one of the two ways to change the world, and I applaud even the posters I disagree with.  (The other way to change the world is applied violence and the does not really work in an online forum).
> 
> 5) even I who am quite pro remove even with accusation only respect the concerns of those here that worry about the edge cases where abuse might happen




I think that about sums it up, yep.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Taneras said:


> You just insinuated a few posts ago that just because someone shared the same genitals (being male) or skin pigmentation (white) as some of the people involved in this harassment that they should be less concerned with being lumped in with a bad label and instead should be also trying to solve that problem.
> 
> Again I'll ask, if that was being said to a Muslim about Terrorism or a black person about inner city crime would that be an acceptable thing to say?  Demonizing may have been too harsh, I admit.  But pretending that guilt can be shared through racial or gendered lines certainly ins't a positive approach by any stretch of the imagination.




I wonder (as a woman) if [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] and I both paid to go to gen con (he paid more with flight then I did with drive) then at a game he and I both played he said something I thought was sexsist, and complained, then he got kicked out if he thinks that might cost him a bit...


----------



## AWizardInDallas

ehren37 said:


> Yes, you dropped Pathfinder because they published material featuring "teh gays". But you TOTALLY arent homophobic. You just prefer everyone to be straight and white... to the point that you cant stomach even changing material that isnt.




Never said any of that and I play Pathfinder.  It's just a moniker, dude, so you can calm down.  No, I simply won't buy books I dislike, same as with regular books.


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> I'm really sorry that happened to you.  The bolded part is what gets me, though.  If they knew he did things like that, he shouldn't have been anywhere near there.  That sort of crap ticks me off.  In that circumstance, there was more going on than a simple he said, she said and no you shouldn't have been kicked out.




He was and still is a famous big named author. Though I understand tha the got treatment for his issues in the 80s and has never behaved that way again. And even being a big name writer would not protect him now at least not at Worldcon.


----------



## Elf Witch

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> I wonder (as a woman) if [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] and I both paid to go to gen con (he paid more with flight then I did with drive) then at a game he and I both played he said something I thought was sexsist, and complained, then he got kicked out if he thinks that might cost him a bit...




Are you kidding with this hypothetical statement? If he said something sexist and you asked him to stop and he did then there was no harassment if he kept it up then that is harassment and if the others back you up and that is Gencon policy then who cares how far he he came and how much he paid.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> Pretty sure I covered all of that by saying, "Call the police."




Yeah, because that's going to fix things?

"Officer, he made disparaging remarks about race/gender/whatever"

"Umm, what exactly do you want me to do about it?  No laws have been broken."

There's more to harassment than sexual assault.


----------



## Taneras

Elf Witch said:


> Some women are uncomfortable listening to men talk about their penis in a sexual manner some men are too. When you are in a public place you need to be aware that you share that space without people. If I am at event sitting behind someone at a panel or a gaming table and they start making sexual jokes and I become uncomfortable  it should be okay for me to ask them to stop. And if they don't then I need to bring in someone in charge. Here is why you ,can't make a case that if you can't talk about the size of your penis the event is going to be ruined for you but you could be ruining the event for me.
> 
> I actually had something similar happen to me I was in a restaurant with a friend who had just buried her infant daughter. The guys behind us were making dead baby jokes normally I don't care about jokes like that. I asked them very politely to stop explaining the situation and they got all butt hurt and started getting louder. So I went to the manager to ask to be moved. Since there was no open seats and our food was coming out he went to the table to ask them to stop and when they got nasty with him he threw them out.
> 
> You make a joke with your wife and it is overheard the situation then depends on where are you sitting was it heard in passing are you all at a gaming table together sitting next to each other in a panel. I can't think of any con committee that is going to step in over a joke like that heard in passing if they do it would simply be to ask you to watch your comments.  Now if you are sort of trapped together and the other people make it clear that they are uncomfortable and ask you to stop and you don't that is harassment.  Again for the same reason you don't need to make jokes like that to enjoy the event. Though I think most people understand the difference between two people joking and some sexist idiot using get back into the kitchen as a way to silence a woman who is stating her opinion.




Lets not pretend that it was a very graphic joke/discussion.  If the only comparison was a dongle to a penis, its a bit like someone making an off hand quib about "that's what she said" or something similar.  Granted, not the most appropriate comment to make at all occasions, but lets not get so petty that we're trying to police stuff like that.  I think we're all adults and we can handle comments that might be lightly inappropriate (to us) without having to report someone.  Honestly, you're going to be harmed more from catching a cold because someone sneezes on their hand and shakes yours later on than you will over a light joke that you weren't even intended to hear.



Elf Witch said:


> You keep saying that you want to prevent a knee jerk reaction but you keep coming up with examples that are examples of knee jerk reaction.




Yes the knee jerking reactions that I've mentioned are of concern to me.  Are you a fan of 5e?  If you are google Acquisitions Incorporated and watch some of the newer stuff.  Some of the WotC staff sit down and play DnD infront of hundreds of people.  Very light sexual comments (on par with "that's what she said" - nothing graphic) are made on stage every now and then, and even shouted from the crowd (by both genders no less).  It's one of the most popular PAX attractions and its riot.  I love the crowd participation...  "GREEN FLAMES!"  "WHAT-HO!"...  If this sort of thing is allowed in this setting, I don't see the issue with someone making a quib beneath their breath to a friend.  I'm sorry, unless its totally out of line small quibs like that shouldn't be an issue.



Elf Witch said:


> BTW how is it unfair if an event has 60 games running and only 1 is female only?




I gotta ask, why is this question being pointed at me?  I have said, probably no less than a dozen times, that I don't have an issue with an all female game.  I don't care if 5 of the 60 are female only.  I don't care if 12 of the 60 are female only.  I really don't.  Not one bit.  And I don't even expect those women/girls to give a good reason as to why they want female only tables.  That's their business.  It doesn't affect me one bit.  What more do I need to say?


----------



## Elf Witch

I have to say I am a little tired of all the hypothetical situations being brought up. I know it is typical of gamers when playing that we try and find every possible way a plan can go wrong but enough.

Let's be realistic here is any policy perfect no it is not. Can you always be 100% fair no you cannot. Is there any evidence that men are regularly being accused of harassment and kicked out of cons unfairly? I doubt it because hey you know the internet the place people share everything has not really seen this kind of thing posted. If that changes then we need to look at it as seriously as we should be looking at cases of harassment. 

We know people not just women have faced harassment and that is why many cons, gaming events and game stores have started policies on handling it. 

I think they most of the policies I have read are fair. I believe that many con committees want to be fair as possible. 

All we can do is try and make gaming events has fair and as enjoyable as possible for all the attendees.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> "Officer, he made disparaging remarks about race/gender/whatever"
> 
> "Umm, what exactly do you want me to do about it?  No laws have been broken."
> 
> There's more to harassment than sexual assault.




A lot of people view verbal harassment as, "Anything I don't want to hear."  You see women reporting harassment because a man told another man a ribald joke and she overheard it.  I wouldn't want anyone kicked out of a con over a verbal harassment claim.  At least not without witnesses to the behavior that will say that the person wouldn't leave her alone when asked and kept it up.  Short of that, just have the con people just tell them to stay away from each other or they will have to leave.


----------



## Maxperson

Elf Witch said:


> He was and still is a famous big named author. Though I understand tha the got treatment for his issues in the 80s and has never behaved that way again. And even being a big name writer would not protect him now at least not at Worldcon.




Yeah.  Fame protected a lot of people for a long time.  It still does, really, just not to the same degree.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> You don't pay much attention to the cases against cops and high profile criminal defendants, do you.  That unflinching observer is often subjected to enough scrutiny by lawyers that the juries rule against what it appears to show.




I will admit that I am not a habitual news watcher/reader: I have depression issues to the point of having seriously considered suicide several times, and watching story after story about how the world is going to pot doesn't help me want to get out of bed in the morning.  That said, I do occasionally watch the news and read news articles, and I don't think that anyone would be surprised hear that cases against cops and high-profile defendants run a little bit differently than your average cases.

Furthermore, for all the legal wrangling that can be done the camera is the best possible eyewitness there is:
*It will not forget.
*It will not have inconsistent testimony.
*It will not get nervous under cross-examination and appear to be lying because it might be sweating or stuttering.
*It will not have a past history of telling falsehoods or other dishonest behavior that could be brought up against it to impugn its character.

And if you think it's easy for a legal team to skew camera footage, you should see what they can do to a human witness on a well-prepared cross-examination.

Additionally, what is the alternative for increasing documentation of harassment and assault without using cameras?  Catching people who harass and assault others is probably the only way to reduce incidents of harassment and assault.  If cameras are not acceptable because they make people uncomfortable or because there have been incidents of the being disregarded at trial, we are left with only human eyewitnesses who are 1) easier to destroy on cross, 2) less reliable in almost every way, and who 3) may decline to cooperate or come forward simply because they don't want to get involved.


----------



## Hussar

Let's be honest here. Policies in place take this sort of thing into consideration. 

Person makes a comment. Second person is offended and should tell person one that. If the comments don't stop then you move up the chain and talk to someone in authority. The person in authority then talks to person one. If the behaviour is still continued then a second complaint is maid and further action is taken. Maybe the person is asked to leave. 

That's how it works. In any harassment policy I've seen. Now sexual assault is obviously a different matter and is a matter for the police. But most harassment isn't going to go that far. But it's not like someone complains once and people get ejected. Nor should they. But policies need to be in place and people have to be confident that action will be taken and complaints will be treated seriously.


----------



## Taneras

Maybe I'm imagining things, but I think this thread has turned in the right direction in the past 5-10 pages.  I do think we're finding more common ground than areas we disagree.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Rygar said:


> I strongly suspect the OP of the thread is a part of the social justice warrior community on Tumblr,  because he's linking to a social justice warrior article on Tumblr.  Which brings me back to:  Tumblr is not a place you go to when you want facts or the truth.




LOL You mean the Tumblr post that was shared to most of the internet? Yeah, way to be paranoid buddy.


----------



## MechaPilot

Christopher Helton said:


> LOL You mean the Tumblr post that was shared to most of the internet? Yeah, way to be paranoid buddy.




I appreciate your bringing greater attention to the issue of sexual harassment and assault in gaming so please don't take this personally, but I don't think that responses like that are helpful.  I know from personal experience that it can be difficult to remain civil in passionate discussions, particularly about harassment and sexual assault, but failing to do is detrimental to the discussion of how to reduce the problem.  Given your thoughtful initial post, I don't think that's what you want.


----------



## MadAxe

I have children. Two of them are reaching an age that they want to play tabletop games. I'm preparing to start them with a few games of Monte Cook's No Thank You Evil, but my intention has been to eventually transisition to other games like D&D.

This thread, and related threads, has me seriously reconsidering how I will do this. I want my kids to trust this hobby, but what I'm seeing says they can't. 

That's what I want to change, but I'm seeing folks basically saying they refuse to change because politics. They don't want gaming to be accessible because they like saying crass things with the rest of the boys club, they like being able to say whatever regardless.


----------



## Christopher Helton

MechaPilot said:


> I appreciate your bringing greater attention to the issue of sexual harassment and assault in gaming so please don't take this personally, but I don't think that responses like that are helpful.  I know from personal experience that it can be difficult to remain civil in passionate discussions, particularly about harassment and sexual assault, but failing to do is detrimental to the discussion of how to reduce the problem.  Given your thoughtful initial post, I don't think that's what you want.




There is no discourse with dishonest people. They are only interested in lobbing insults (or at least what they think are insults), and derailing the conversation.


----------



## Koloth

Does anyone know if the rate of reported harassment is higher or lower among the gaming community as compared to the population at large?

If females are allowed to demand and get all female games, for what ever reason, at conventions, then it is only fair that males be allowed the same privilege, for whatever reason.   Maybe they just want to avoid getting involved in a harassment claim, even as a witness.

I think it is a sad commentary on today's society that the 'Ethics Policy' as presented in the original post is even necessary.  Every point seems covered by existing laws and civil tort.


----------



## Dannager

Christopher Helton said:


> There is no discourse with dishonest people. They are only interested in lobbing insults (or at least what they think are insults), and derailing the conversation.




This, precisely. When someone clearly isn't being honest about their motivations or intentions but insists on participating in the discussion anyway, the best approach is to shine a critical spotlight on what they're saying. You can't change their mind, but you can change the minds of those observing the conversation by exposing as much of the truth as possible.


----------



## Taneras

Rygar said:


> I strongly suspect the OP of the thread is a part of the social justice warrior community on Tumblr,  because he's linking to a social justice warrior article on Tumblr.  Which brings me back to:  Tumblr is not a place you go to when you want facts or the truth.
> 
> It's also important to note,  it is not uncommon to find the tumblr community defining harassment as "Anyone who disagrees with what I believe is harassing me!".
> 
> If we're going to assert that there's a problem and it is imperative that we fix it,  we need something a great deal more credible than Tumblr and its community.




I do think to some extent some of that article is manufactured, and I have no respect for the title or the focus on gender or race.  Sure the trigger warnings, suggestions that the only acceptable action is for the *guys* to sit down, listen, and ask how we can help, and talk of safe spaces absolutely is connected to some of what you're covering...  But...  Don't let that get in the way of addressing actual harassment.  Unless you're going to troll us and tell us that you think that all of it is manufactured and no one ever gets harassed, physical or otherwise, then at least focus some of your attention on policies/awareness that can reduce this sort of behavior.  I think we all understand what your views of tumblr and that article are.


----------



## MechaPilot

Chris, Dan, again, I really do appreciate that you both support spreading awareness of the problem and taking measures to reduce the problem, but the best way to minimize attempts to derail a discussion are to ignore those attempts.  Believe me, I know that it's very difficult to do.  It's not like I have some kind of superhuman will and have always been able to resist replying to attempts to derail a discussion.  I most certainly do not and have not.  But, it's worth trying to remember and follow that practice when possible.


----------



## Taneras

MadAxe said:


> They don't want gaming to be accessible because they like saying crass things with the rest of the boys club, they like being able to say whatever regardless.




Please point me to the person who wants to say "whatever" they want, or quote some of these "crass" quotes that they're demanding that they have a right to be said.

Also consider the context.  I don't think anyone is advocating that the language present at an adult table also be pushed upon a kids starter table, or a teens table.

I have no problem with people disagreeing, but there's no need to mischaracterize people's stances.


----------



## MadAxe

Taneras said:


> Please point me to the person who wants to say "whatever" they want, or quote some of these "crass" quotes that they're demanding that they have a right to be said.
> 
> Also consider the context.  I don't think anyone is advocating that the language present at an adult table also be pushed upon a kids starter table, or a teens table.
> 
> I have no problem with people disagreeing, but there's no need to mischaracterize people's stances.




Horse


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> the best approach is to shine a critical spotlight on what they're saying. You can't change their mind, but you can change the minds of those observing the conversation by exposing as much of the truth as possible.




I'm surprised that you think Christopher Helton has done this.  Outside of starting this article I can't recall a single productive post he's made.  All I've seen are sarcastic and dismissive comments.


----------



## Christopher Helton

MechaPilot said:


> Chris, Dan, again, I really do appreciate that you both support spreading awareness of the problem and taking measures to reduce the problem, but the best way to minimize attempts to derail a discussion are to ignore those attempts.  Believe me, I know that it's very difficult to do.  It's not like I have some kind of superhuman will and have always been able to resist replying to attempts to derail a discussion.  I most certainly do not and have not.  But, it's worth trying to remember and follow that practice when possible.




I have been on the internet, in some form or another, since 1987. I know how to act towards trolls online.

There is a misunderstanding in a lot of people's minds that this is a "discussion" with "sides." The thing is, that's not the case. There's people who are behaving horribly, and those who are trying to enable bad, and criminal behavior. I don't have any care if those people are hurt by what I say about them, because they hold reprehensible opinions. The sooner that they know that we not only don't care about their pro-harassment behavior but that we think that the only response to those horrible (for lack of a better word) is mockery and derision.


----------



## Christopher Helton

MechaPilot said:


> Chris, Dan, again, I really do appreciate that you both support spreading awareness of the problem and taking measures to reduce the problem, but the best way to minimize attempts to derail a discussion are to ignore those attempts.  Believe me, I know that it's very difficult to do.  It's not like I have some kind of superhuman will and have always been able to resist replying to attempts to derail a discussion.  I most certainly do not and have not.  But, it's worth trying to remember and follow that practice when possible.




I have been on the internet, in some form or another, since 1987. I know how to act towards trolls online.

There is a misunderstanding in a lot of people's minds that this is a "discussion" with "sides." The thing is, that's not the case. There's people who are behaving horribly, and those who are trying to enable bad, and criminal behavior. I don't have any care if those people are hurt by what I say about them, because they hold reprehensible opinions. The sooner that they know that we not only don't care about their pro-harassment behavior but that we think that the only response to those horrible (for lack of a better word) is mockery and derision the better.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> I'm surprised that you think Christopher Helton has done this.  Outside of starting this article I can't recall a single productive post he's made.  All I've seen are sarcastic and dismissive comments.




I don't know what to tell you other than that you should be paying closer attention. He's made a number of posts discussing the issues at length. You're free to look through his posting history.

That aside, sarcasm is part of that "critical spotlight" I referred to.


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> I'm surprised that you think Christopher Helton has done this.  Outside of starting this article I can't recall a single productive post he's made.  All I've seen are sarcastic and dismissive comments.




I can point to a couple good posts of his beyond the OP that were directed toward continuing the discussion: namely posts #17 and #22.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> I have been on the internet, in some form or another, since 1987. I know how to act towards trolls online.
> 
> There is a misunderstanding in a lot of people's minds that this is a "discussion" with "sides." The thing is, that's not the case. There's people who are behaving horribly, and those who are trying to enable bad, and criminal behavior. I don't have any care if those people are hurt by what I say about them, because they hold reprehensible opinions. The sooner that they know that we not only don't care about their pro-harassment behavior but that we think that the only response to those horrible (for lack of a better word) is mockery and derision.




Oh thank god the internet professional with decades of experience and mind reading abilities is here to explain to us what everyone is thinking by reading pixles on a computer screen.

After reading that, what was your initial response?  Being defensive?  That's what you're doing.

Not everyone is the same, I don't think you can lump the vast majority of people into baskets that quickly, over a few internet posts.  While I haven't been on the internet since 1987, I have been on it since 1995/1996, and I've found that both in real life and online that starting off with the assumption that the person you're speaking with is being honest and has good intentions is the best way to conduct a conversation.  Obviously you're going to run into people who don't want to be reasoned with and might even be acting that way just to get a rise out of you.  But I don't think 3 or 4 posts is enough to determine that in most cases.


----------



## Taneras

MechaPilot said:


> I can point to a couple good posts of his beyond the OP that were directed toward continuing the discussion: namely posts #17 and #22.




I guess I should have said since I've been posting here, which started around page 13 I think.  My mistake.


----------



## MechaPilot

Christopher Helton said:


> I have been on the internet, in some form or another, since 1987. I know how to act towards trolls online.
> 
> There is a misunderstanding in a lot of people's minds that this is a "discussion" with "sides." The thing is, that's not the case. There's people who are behaving horribly, and those who are trying to enable bad, and criminal behavior. I don't have any care if those people are hurt by what I say about them, because they hold reprehensible opinions. The sooner that they know that we not only don't care about their pro-harassment behavior but that we think that the only response to those horrible (for lack of a better word) is mockery and derision.




I agree with you that there are no "sides."  There are a lot of people with viewpoints that fall into more than just two camps.

There are gamers like myself and Elf Witch who have suffered harassment or assault and advocate for change because we have been hurt by such behavior.

There are decent gamers who agree that harassment and assault are problems that need to be addressed (even if they have a range of viewpoints of what should be done to reduce the problem).

There are also likely to be some gamers who are part of the problem.

And, given that this is the internet, there are also likely to be some people who just want to make others angry.

However, you also probably have decent gamers who were, to this point, unaware of either the problem or its severity.  The kind of comments that I described as being not helpful are likely to make these gamers less receptive to your initial and thoughtful OP, if not making them want to walk away from the discussion.


----------



## Christopher Helton

MechaPilot said:


> However, you also probably have decent gamers who were, to this point, unaware of either the problem or its severity.  The kind of comments that I described as being not helpful are likely to make these gamers less receptive to your initial and thoughtful OP, if not making them want to walk away from the discussion.




We're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Hussar

Koloth said:


> Does anyone know if the rate of reported harassment is higher or lower among the gaming community as compared to the population at large?
> 
> If females are allowed to demand and get all female games, for what ever reason, at conventions, then it is only fair that males be allowed the same privilege, for whatever reason.   Maybe they just want to avoid getting involved in a harassment claim, even as a witness.
> 
> I think it is a sad commentary on today's society that the 'Ethics Policy' as presented in the original post is even necessary.  Every point seems covered by existing laws and civil tort.




Let's be honest here. There's no need for an all dudes table because almost every one of them
Is an all dudes table. 

Equality does not equal treating all of things as the same. That's why it's so hard to make any headway in issues like this. You don't need all dudes trains in order to have women and children only train cars.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> I have been on the internet, in some form or another, since 1987. I know how to act towards trolls online.
> 
> There is a misunderstanding in a lot of people's minds that this is a "discussion" with "sides." The thing is, that's not the case. There's people who are behaving horribly, and those who are trying to enable bad, and criminal behavior. I don't have any care if those people are hurt by what I say about them, because they hold reprehensible opinions. The sooner that they know that we not only don't care about their pro-harassment behavior but that we think that the only response to those horrible (for lack of a better word) is mockery and derision.



you don't understand if you thinkanyone who disagreswith you is evil

Edit: I often come off offensive even when trying to be nice...I don't want to be kicked form my $1000 summer vacation in front of my friends because some one ran and reported i said something stupid... I will say sorry if that offended you... And I have a habit of putting my foot in my mouth so don't mind me.... But I shouldn't be kicked out for it


----------



## MechaPilot

Christopher Helton said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree.




I can do that.  Again though, to make my position clear, thank you for starting this thread to try to bring more attention to harassment and assault and discussing means of reducing them.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> Let's be honest here. There's no need for an all dudes table because almost every one of them
> Is an all dudes table.




True, but lets say some girls wanted to join and the guys wanted the table to remain all dudes?  Sure, there are still "other all dude tables", so what's 1 less one, right?  But to those who are part of that specific table, what good do those "other all dude tables" do for them who are now not at an all dudes table?  There's even a great chance that some of the other "all dude tables" would love to have female input at their table.

I'm shocked to see why people don't see applying different standards to each gender isn't a problem.



Hussar said:


> Equality does not equal treating all of things as the same.




I agree, but we're not talking about the need to treat every single thing in this world as if its equal, we're talking about genders specifically.  Why shouldn't genders be treated the same?


----------



## Hussar

GMforPowergamers said:


> you don't understand if you thinkanyone who disagreswith you is evil




That's not the issue though. We've seen numerous examples of people either calling the examples in the op fabrications or any sort of policy treatment as pandering. I can imagine it gets very frustrating to continuously have the same conversation over and over again. 

So yeah, if your response to the OP is "prove it or it didn't happen " then you are very much part of the problem.


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:


> you don't understand if you thinkanyone who disagreswith you is evil
> 
> Edit: I often come off offensive even when trying to be nice...I don't want to be kicked form my $1000 summer vacation in front of my friends because some one ran and reported i said something stupid... I will say sorry if that offended you... And I have a habit of putting my foot in my mouth so don't mind me.... But I shouldn't be kicked out for it




In Helton's defense he literally did just disagree with someone (mechapilot) and I don't think he thinks that they're evil.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Hussar said:


> That's not the issue though. We've seen numerous examples of people either calling the examples in the op fabrications or any sort of policy treatment as pandering. I can imagine it gets very frustrating to continuously have the same conversation over and over again.
> 
> So yeah, if your response to the OP is "prove it or it didn't happen " then you are very much part of the problem.




But a0tolerance 1 compliant with no proof removal of my $1,000 and only vacation because some one took offense at something stupid I said is wrong...

If I say " rape the horses and kill the woman...eat did I get that backwards"  as a joke and the woman at the table behind me complains I should be force to apologize for being a jerk...not removed from gen con.


----------



## Christopher Helton

GMforPowergamers said:


> you don't understand if you thinkanyone who disagreswith you is evil




I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is evil. I think that people who come into these conversations and attempt to derail them, and who think that calling people something as dumb as "social justice warrior," are on the wrong side of history. I think people who abuse and harass anyone are evil.

And if you don't want your $1000 vacation ruined....don't be a dick or break the law. You'll be fine otherwise.


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:


> If I say " rape the horses and kill the woman...eat did I get that backwards"  as a joke and the woman at the table behind me complains I should be force to apologize for being a jerk...not removed from gen con.




While I'm not saying that I'd be for your removal from the event entirely, surely a strict warning and pulling you from that specific table wouldn't be over reacting.  That's some pretty dark humor...  I'd keep that hand to my chest unless you know every single person you're around intimately.


----------



## Dannager

GMforPowergamers said:


> But a0tolerance 1 compliant with no proof removal of my $1,000 and only vacation because some one took offense at something stupid I said is wrong...
> 
> If I say " rape the horses and kill the woman...eat did I get that backwards"  as a joke and the woman at the table behind me complains I should be force to apologize for being a jerk...not removed from gen con.




You're really asking for trouble making "jokes" like that. You may see removal from the event as an extreme response, but others won't. And I guarantee that the memory of being kicked out of an event will stay your tongue the next time a "joke" like that starts bouncing around inside your head at the gaming table.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> While I'm not saying that I'd be for your removal from the event entirely, surely a strict warning and pulling you from that specific table wouldn't be over reacting.  That's some pretty dark humor...  I'd keep that hand to my chest unless you know every single person you're around intimately.




I have never said it at a table but it was the only offsieve thing I could think of...some joke the skaven players of war hammer make...since I have heard multi players over the years I always assumed it was from something... I do know that thing I don't think are offensive get taken that way ALTo and have since I was a kid... I have been told it is my eore voice and my resting bitch face...but I shouldn't take offense to those lables


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is evil. I think that people who come into these conversations and attempt to derail them, and who think that calling people something as dumb as "social justice warrior," are on the wrong side of history. I think people who abuse and harass anyone are evil.
> 
> And if you don't want your $1000 vacation ruined....don't be a dick or break the law. You'll be fine otherwise.



I have never once set Otto beadick or breathe law but I do have communication issues where I don't always get along well in groups...up u till thelasg year or two theexcaption wasgaming


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have never said it at a table but it was the only offsieve thing I could think of...some joke the skaven players of war hammer make...since I have heard multi players over the years I always assumed it was from something... I do know that thing I don't think are offensive get taken that way ALTo and have since I was a kid... I have been told it is my eore voice and my resting bitch face...but I shouldn't take offense to those lables




As a general rule, much of the language repeated from a multiplayer game isn't appropriate in any face to face encounters.  It's not even appropriate in the game that it was said in.  This is coming from a seasoned League of Legends player.  Sadly a sizable portion of our fanbase is quite toxic.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dannager said:


> You're really asking for trouble making "jokes" like that. You may see removal from the event as an extreme response, but others won't. And I guarantee that the memory of being kicked out of an event will stay your tongue the next time a "joke" like that starts bouncing around inside your head at the gaming table.




I dontthink I am being offensive when people say I am...I always apologize and I never mean tocwuse issue... I have even you d repeating a joke or comment others at the same table make Co is out worse from me...


----------



## Hussar

Taneras said:


> True, but lets say some girls wanted to join and the guys wanted the table to remain all dudes?  Sure, there are still "other all dude tables", so what's 1 less one, right?  But to those who are apart of that specific table, what good do those "other all dude tables" do for them who are now not at an all dudes table?
> 
> I'm shocked to see why people don't see applying different standards to each gender isn't a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but we're not talking about the need to treat every single thing in this world as if its equal, we're talking about genders specifically.  Why shouldn't genders be treated the same?




Seriously?

You honestly believe that by simply making all things identically equal that all problems will go away?  

Quick question. What percentage of male gamers do you think are sexually harassed?  Do you think it's anywhere near the same percentage as female gamers?

Remember there's very different reasons for gender specific tables. The women only table is to provide a safe space for women to play in and be welcomed to the hobby. Not too many male gamers are afraid for their safety if a woman sits at the table. 

The potential benefit of allowing women only game afar outweighs the negative of a couple of butt hurt male gamers who want a boys only club.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> Also, and this is a little off topic but in a sense could prevent *some* of this stuff from occurring...  But I think its important to have a "session 0" where before the campaign/story starts and after your characters have been created, stats, personalities, goals, alignments and all.  The purpose of the this session is to see how compatible each character is with everyone else, seeing as they're suppose to be adventuring together.  Rapey or otherwise hyper-evil characters almost never work unless the story is being told from the bad guys perspective and all participants understand that it could get very dark, and that's not something the majority of tables run.
> 
> By using a session 0, a DM might catch issues with compatibility that very well may arise later on in the story.




At a con with strangers for 4 hrs is not going to work


----------



## Dannager

It boggles my mind that there are still people who believe that the solution to societal ills is to apply the same behaviors, attitude, and logic towards all possible groups of people.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> True, but lets say some girls wanted to join and the guys wanted the table to remain all dudes?  Sure, there are still "other all dude tables", so what's 1 less one, right?...I'm shocked to see why people don't see applying different standards to each gender isn't a problem.




So, how is this different to a table where "all the PCs must be elves" or a table where "all the players must be under eighteen" or an "alcohol free table"? I'm an elf-hating, elderly, drunk should I be upset that some tables are allowed to exclude me, even if there are plenty of other tables at the con where I am welcome?

An all-women table simply provides an opportunity for women at a con to play a game with some of the other women at the con. Why is that a problem?



Taneras said:


> I agree, but we're not talking about the need to treat every single thing in this world as if its equal, we're talking about genders specifically.  Why shouldn't genders be treated the same?




Because in the context of the gaming community the opportunities and experiences of different genders are not the same.


----------



## Christopher Helton

There's honestly no situation where a rape joke is appropriate.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> There's honestly no situation where a rape joke is appropriate.




Um...in a room full of people who don't mind that humor?

I mean the dumb joke I quoted I first heard in 94 in a store full of customers it has been repeated over the years many time and I have never heard a complaint...I used it here as the worst joke I could think of, but its nag like ithas no place


----------



## Christopher Helton

GMforPowergamers said:


> Um...in a room full of people who don't mind that humor?
> 
> I mean the dumb joke I quoted I first heard in 94 in a store full of customers it has been repeated over the years many time and I have never heard a complaint...I used it here as the worst joke I could think of, but its nag like ithas no place




Um. No.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> You honestly believe that by simply making all things identically equal that all problems will go away?




*sigh* I never said that it'd make "all problems" go away.



Hussar said:


> Quick question. What percentage of male gamers do you think are sexually harassed?  Do you think it's anywhere near the same percentage as female gamers?




It's probably inline with the regular population figures where, obviously, female gamers would be a significant majority of the victims.



Hussar said:


> Remember there's very different reasons for gender specific tables.




You need to remember that I never said that there wasn't.  I even went so far as to say, several times, that I don't think anyone should have to give a reason as to why they want a gender specific table.



Hussar said:


> The potential benefit of allowing women only game afar outweighs the negative of a couple of butt hurt male gamers who want a boys only club.




Yea...  And...  I'm sure the "butt hurt male gamers" who want a male only table won't be trying to get into the female only table...  Right?


----------



## Hussar

The whole "We must treat everyone exactly the same in order to be fair" argument falls flat on its face because it ignores context.  It ignores why we would have a "Female only" table.

Look, if a guy sits down at a table with five female gamers, would he have even the slightest concern for his safety?  Sure, he might have a bad time.  The table could be a bunch of ass hats and gender certainly isn't a factor there.  He could have a terrible time for any number of reasons.  Being groped or sexually harassed or harassed in general probably isn't one of them though.  Possible, but, very unlikely.

OTOH, if a woman sits down with five male gamers, all strangers, I'm fairly willing to bet that there is some degree of concern there.  Maybe not a problem, but, certainly not the easiest place to relax.  Statistics being what they are, there's a decent chance that one of those five dudes is less the perfectly honourable.  It happens.  This isn't a secret or some bizarre theory.  It's just numbers.

So, we create female only tables to provide a safe place for female gamers to play without having to be concerned.  Why don't we do it for male gamers?  Because male gamers are not concerned for their safety.  By an large, they don't have to be.  There's very little reason for them to be concerned for their personal safety.

Is it fair?  Absolutely.  Fair =/= balanced.  That's not what fairness is.  Fairness is allowing everyone to have equal opportunities.  It is very easy for a male gamer to sit down at any table and have a good time without being afraid for his safety.  It is not as easy for female gamers.  Therefore, in order to be fair, we create spaces for female gamers that exclude male gamers.  That's fair, and just.  

And that's what we want.


----------



## Hussar

The whole "We must treat everyone exactly the same in order to be fair" argument falls flat on its face because it ignores context.  It ignores why we would have a "Female only" table.

Look, if a guy sits down at a table with five female gamers, would he have even the slightest concern for his safety?  Sure, he might have a bad time.  The table could be a bunch of ass hats and gender certainly isn't a factor there.  He could have a terrible time for any number of reasons.  Being groped or sexually harassed or harassed in general probably isn't one of them though.  Possible, but, very unlikely.

OTOH, if a woman sits down with five male gamers, all strangers, I'm fairly willing to bet that there is some degree of concern there.  Maybe not a problem, but, certainly not the easiest place to relax.  Statistics being what they are, there's a decent chance that one of those five dudes is less the perfectly honourable.  It happens.  This isn't a secret or some bizarre theory.  It's just numbers.

So, we create female only tables to provide a safe place for female gamers to play without having to be concerned.  Why don't we do it for male gamers?  Because male gamers are not concerned for their safety.  By an large, they don't have to be.  There's very little reason for them to be concerned for their personal safety.

Is it fair?  Absolutely.  Fair =/= balanced.  That's not what fairness is.  Fairness is allowing everyone to have equal opportunities.  It is very easy for a male gamer to sit down at any table and have a good time without being afraid for his safety.  It is not as easy for female gamers.  Therefore, in order to be fair, we create spaces for female gamers that exclude male gamers.  That's fair, and just.  

And that's what we want.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> Um. No.




If a joke doesn't offend anyone in the room why is it not apporprate for the room? I don't lime rape jokes or Nazi jokes or dead baby jokes or chuck Norse jokes but if others are laughing and no one minds who am I to say they are not apporprate and who are you to say so?


----------



## Lehrbuch

Maxperson said:


> A man should never have to fear being falsely accused.  Your solution also works both ways.  It can equally be applied to women as, "If a woman fears being assaulted by men, she should not be alone with one or a group of men."
> 
> Neither "solution" is a solution.




Exactly my point. Expecting women to submit carry surveillance at all times to prove allegations of harassment are true is plainly ridiculous, when we would not similarly expect men to carry surveillance to prove that allegations were false.

Worrying about false allegations is pretty much a false flag. I certainly sympathise that it happened to you, but what you describe was in a very different context with personal history between yourself and the woman.

Women being pretty routinely harassed by random idiots to a greater or lesser extent is an on-going problem that actually happens to significant numbers of women in the gaming community. It probably hasn't happened to literally all woman gamers, and it certainly isn't perpetrated by all male gamers. But it's a real problem for women.

On the other hand, men being falsely accused by random members of some sort of fem-Nazi collective doesn't seem to be a real thing. Notwithstanding, a few examples, like your own, where its an aspect of previous relationship fallout or similar.

It's embarrassing for women to make accusations of harassment, and risky as it has potential to create more problems for the woman. No woman in her right-mind is going around making false harassment allegations.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

GMforPowergamers said:


> Um...in a room full of people who don't mind that humor?
> 
> I mean the dumb joke I quoted I first heard in 94 in a store full of customers it has been repeated over the years many time and I have never heard a complaint...I used it here as the worst joke I could think of, but its nag like ithas no place




Is a racist joke ok in a Klan meeting? Of course not. Its bigoted scumspeech no matter the context. 
Rape jokes are exactly the same.


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> Why is that a problem?




There's no problem, I'm all for female only (and male only) tables.



Lehrbuch said:


> Because in the context of the gaming community the opportunities and experiences of different genders are not the same.




Don't you think that if we treated men and women the same that the opportunities and experiences (to any reasonable extent) would be the same?


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:


> If a joke doesn't offend anyone in the room why is it not apporprate for the room? I don't lime rape jokes or Nazi jokes or dead baby jokes or chuck Norse jokes but if others are laughing and no one minds who am I to say they are not apporprate and who are you to say so?




He thinks victimless crimes are still crimes, apparently.  While it'd make me feel uncomfortable, if everyone in earshot is on board I don't think that there is necessarily any harm being done.  Sure rape is bad and not a funny topic to most, especially rape victims, neither are murder jokes, jokes about shark attacks, jokes about lightning strikes, etc.  Just because the joke deals with a bad topic doesn't mean that its harmful.  A big chunk of comedy would die if that's the case.

And, oddly enough, lots of popular comedians refuse to go to college campuses anymore.  Too much political correctness.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

doctorbadwolf said:


> Is a racist joke ok in a Klan meeting? Of course not. Its bigoted scumspeech no matter the context.
> Rape jokes are exactly the same.




I have never been to a kkk thing but I would think that that is exactly the place for a racist joke...maybe one of the only


----------



## Taneras

doctorbadwolf said:


> Is a racist joke ok in a Klan meeting? Of course not. Its bigoted scumspeech no matter the context.




What if a black person tells a racist joke about blacks?  (Yea, it happens all the time)  Let me guess, he's a self hating bigot, right?  Whatever deliberately manufactured outrages it takes to maintain that narrative you so desperately want to push, I guess...


----------



## Hussar

Taneras said:


> There's no problem, I'm all for female only (and male only) tables.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that if we treated men and women the same that the opportunities and experiences (to any reasonable extent) would be the same?




No, I absolutely don't.  Because the reasons for creating those play spaces are entirely different.  

A male only table is not being created to protect the safety of men.  Just because someone else has something does not automatically mean you should have it too.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> It ignores why we would have a "Female only" table.




Ruibbish, if everyone was treated equally what would be the need for a female only table?  It wouldn't matter what gender you are, and it wouldn't matter what gender those are who are around you.  Everyone would be treated the same.  I actually have to explain this?


----------



## Hussar

Taneras said:


> What if a black person tells a racist joke about blacks?  (Yea, it happens all the time)  Let me guess, he's a self hating bigot, right?  Whatever deliberately manufactured outrages it takes to maintain that narrative you so desperately want to push, I guess...





No.  it's still racist and it's still a bad thing.  Why is that hard to understand?  Racist jokes are racist, regardless of who tells them or where.  Just because everyone around that person is also a racist doesn't suddenly mean that the comment is not a bad thing.  Taken to an extreme, you can justify pretty much any behaviour that way.  It's okay to do or say anything, so long as enough people around you agree?


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> A male only table is not being created to protect the safety of men.




So in your mind the *only* reason to create a gender only table is for safety?  Did you even read the story of the woman who was mentioned in the original article?

The reason people opposed her woman only table was because they thought it would make people think that women weren't safe in their community.  And she didn't agree with that.  She made it clear that that wasn't her reason.


----------



## Hussar

Taneras said:


> Ruibbish, if everyone was treated equally what would be the need for a female only table?  It wouldn't matter what gender you are, and it wouldn't matter what gender those are who are around you.  Everyone would be treated the same.  I actually have to explain this?





Because we live in the real world and people are never treated equally?  Accounting practices do not resolve social issues.  Column A has X so we have to add X to Column B?  Sorry, that doesn't work.


----------



## Hussar

Taneras said:


> So in your mind the *only* reason to create a gender only table is for safety?  Did you even read the story of the woman who was mentioned in the original article?
> 
> The reason people opposed her woman only table was because they thought it would make people think that women weren't safe in their community.  And she didn't agree with that.  She made it clear that that wasn't her reason.





I'm sure there are many reasons.  But, let's be honest, safety is one of them.


----------



## Ace

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=944]Ace[/MENTION] - this isn't about home games. This is about public spaces. Always has been. So why are you talking about home games?
> 
> Now, if I want my group to be a dudes club and I want to revel in Golden Age fantasy tropes with all the bigotry and misogyny that entails, more power to me.
> 
> But, in public spaces?  In game books that are meant for general consumption?  Not a bloody chance. No way. It's completely unacceptable.




Ah no. In the end its always about control. In this case control of the content of gaming books and the gaming   sphere shifting  the hobby to    the  ends of social justice and Leftism. For those who don't share a prog agenda, its unwelcome. 

It is is as IMO as C.S Lewis explained in God in the Dock 

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Also there are no public spaces in any context here anyway, Cons and game stores are private not public. Let me repeat that, stores and cons are as much a private space as ones home.

Public space is stuff owned by the government and open to the public. There are already rules in action here. 

That said, there is a vague general agreement that  avoiding legal exposure  is a good idea . I don't especially care about the rest, its up the Con organizers what they feel suit there needs.  Not anyone else's . In short, there is no Us , no uniform culture and what culture there is, certainly doesn't serve social justice. 

We don't need this woman's help, our hobby doesn't need her seeming anti White racism  or "help" which is more harm than good  and we are better off without them and without the harassers alike. Its self polices fine thanks.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> Why is that hard to understand?  Racist jokes are racist, regardless of who tells them or where.




Because its a joke.  Just like if I tell my best friend I'm gonna punch him right square in the nose, jokingly of course, isn't the same as an actual threat of violence.  Intent matters, and perception of those around you matters.



Hussar said:


> It's okay to do or say anything, so long as enough people around you agree?




Firstly I never said "enough", I said all.  Nice try.  And while I'm sure I haven't thought of every single type of behavior known to man I'd wager most of them done in this setting would fall under the victimless crime category.



Hussar said:


> I'm sure there are many reasons.  But, let's be honest, safety is one of them.





Yes, safety could very well be an issue for some women and be the reason they want to have a female only table.  But there are other reasons, as was stated by the very same woman who told Christopher Helton about her experience featured in the article in the OP.  She had a different reason.  So safety isn't the only reason.  So please stop comparing guys wanting their own tables with women needing safety as that's no the only reason.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> Because we live in the real world and people are never treated equally?  Accounting practices do not resolve social issues.  Column A has X so we have to add X to Column B?  Sorry, that doesn't work.




Just because it would never actually end up being equal doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best.  Murder, rape, and theft will always be apart of the same real world but I really doubt you'd protest attempts at reducing those behaviors.

Treating men and women the same would serve to help men and women be equal.  Obviously...


----------



## MechaPilot

Regarding inappropriate jokes:

I have a dark sense of humor, but I don't like rape jokes.  I don't think they're funny in the slightest.  I think they're in very poor taste, and I think anyone who makes one in front of people they don't know very well runs the risk of callously bringing up and laughing at another person's prior traumatic experiences.  If anyone were to make a rape joke around me, I have to admit that I'd feel unsafe around that person, and that I would not remain around that person.

But, I have no right to tell people what they can and can't find funny; especially when they're in a private gathering of people who share the same sense of humor.  In a public gathering of complete or nearly complete strangers like a con however, especially if we're talking about an event that allows admittance to those under 18, people should try to keep things at about a PG 13 level.

To be clear, it's not as if I think the PG 13 level is appropriate because that's where my sense of humor is.  I have a dark sense of humor, and I enjoy some lewd jokes (if I had to rate my sense of humor, I'd have to put it at an R rating).  However, I also realize that some of the jokes I would make should not be told around people I don't know very well.


----------



## Hussar

Ace said:


> Ah no. In the end its always about control. In this case control of the content of gaming books, shifting them to the ends of social justice and Leftism.




Bwuh?  Are you kidding me?  You honestly think it's a bad thing for the game books to be more inclusive? 



Taneras said:


> Just because it would never actually end up being equal doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best.  Murder, rape, and theft will always be apart of the same real world but I really doubt you'd protest attempts at reducing those behaviors.
> 
> Treating men and women the same would serve to help men and women be equal.  Obviously...




Yet, in these behaviours, we certainly DON'T treat men and women the same.  And they have to effect of reducing these behaviours.  Women only train cars, just to repeat an earlier example.  I'm sure there are many others.  And there's a very, very good reason we don't treat genders the same on these issues.  Rape, in particular.  Male rapes are far, far outnumbered by female rapes.  So, we treat them differently.  We have women's shelters for a very good reason.  Should we have male shelters too?  Probably, but, the priority is considerably lower.  

Closing our eyes to context and pretending that if we check the tick boxes on both sides will fix the problems is not going to work.  History has proven that it doesn't work.  You can't simply pretend that context doesn't matter.

So, we get harassment policies in place in public spaces, we get women only tables at gaming conventions, probably be a good idea to have kid friendly tables as well.  Because, the whole point of this entire thread is talking about harassment.  Safety in public spaces is a right.  It's shouldn't be an issue, but, it is.  So, we have to treat the issue at hand.  Male gamers having a male only table at a convention is ridiculously easy to achieve.  It's simply a case of finding four or five other dudes and all signing up at the same table.  Poof, done.  Or, at open tables, finding a table that there aren't any women at, and sitting there.  The opportunity for a male only table is easily found and does not require any special treatment.

Finding a table of all women is neither simple nor easy.  Unless you come to the convention with five women, it's unlikely that you would ever be able to manage it.  Random chance certainly won't achieve the opportunity, the way it would for an all male table.  

Again, the issue is equality of opportunity.  Without special policies, it would extremely difficult to find an all female table at a convention.  I'd go so far as to say almost impossible, unless planned for before the convention - and then you're not being welcoming to new gamers - you're only talking about existing gamers with established groups.  Finding an all male table at a convention is pretty close to assumed.  I've not been to a convention in a while, but, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most tables are all male.

I mean, here's a fairly random picture of gaming tables from Gen Con:  







Do you honestly believe that male gamers need help finding all male tables?


----------



## Hussar

MechaPilot said:


> Regarding inappropriate jokes:
> 
> I have a dark sense of humor, but I don't like rape jokes.  I don't think they're funny in the slightest.  I think they're in very poor taste, and I think anyone who makes one in front of people they don't know very well runs the risk of callously bringing up and laughing at another person's prior traumatic experiences.  If anyone were to make a rape joke around me, I have to admit that I'd feel unsafe around that person, and that I would not remain around that person.
> 
> But, I have no right to tell people what they can and can't find funny; especially when they're in a private gathering of people who share the same sense of humor.  In a public gathering of complete or nearly complete strangers like a con however, especially if we're talking about an event that allows admittance to those under 18, people should try to keep things at about a PG 13 level.
> 
> To be clear, it's not as if I think the PG 13 level is appropriate because that's where my sense of humor is.  I have a dark sense of humor, and I enjoy some lewd jokes (if I had to rate my sense of humor, I'd have to put it at an R rating).  However, I also realize that some of the jokes I would make should not be told around people I don't know very well.




And, honestly, that's the standard that should always be applied.  Be aware of your surroundings and don't be a dick.  Pretty much truth anywhere you go.

Unfortunately, apparently, common sense isn't as common as might be hoped.


----------



## MechaPilot

Ace said:


> Its self polices fine thanks.




I think that many of the women who have been harassed or assaulted would not agree with you that the results of self-policing thus far have been "fine."  As a woman who has been harassed and who has heard from a con-attending male friend that harassment and assault is a significant issue at gaming and anime cons, I would certainly not agree with that assertion.

Now, I'm not asking for control over the content of gaming products.  I will spend my money on things that appeal to me, and I will not purchase things that don't.  End of story.  However, if con organizers want me to spend my money on attending cons then I need to feel reasonably assured that sacrificing my dignity and my right to go unmolested is not going to be part of the cost of admittance.

Also, just to be perfectly accurate, a store is provably not as private as a home.  A homeowner can expel someone from their property or demand that someone not enter their property because of race, gender, religion, etc.  However, there are anti-discrimination laws that prevent businesses from denying service based on things such as race.


----------



## werecorpse

Taneras said:


> Because its a joke.  Just like if I tell my best friend I'm gonna punch him right square in the nose, jokingly of course, isn't the same as an actual threat of violence.  Intent matters, and perception of those around you matters.




imo what matters is if the person you tell the potentially offensive joke to is offended. Not if you said it in a joking manner and never really meant to offend them.
edit:and even if they aren't a joke denigrating a certain racial group is still racist.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> Rape, in particular.  Male rapes are far, far outnumbered by female rapes.  So, we treat them differently.




In what contextually relevant scenario do we treat men as potential rapists based solely on the fact that their men?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Male gamers having a male only table at a convention is ridiculously easy to achieve.  It's simply a case of finding four or five other dudes and all signing up at the same table.  Poof, done.
> 
> Finding a table of all women is neither simple nor easy.  Unless you come to the convention with five women, it's unlikely that you would ever be able to manage it.  Random chance certainly won't achieve the opportunity, the way it would for an all male table.
> 
> Again, the issue is equality of opportunity.  With special policies, it would extremely difficult to find an all female table at a convention.  I'd go so far as to say almost impossible, unless planned for before the convention - and then you're not being welcoming to new gamers - you're only talking about existing gamers with established groups.  Finding an all male table at a convention is pretty close to assumed.  I've not been to a convention in a while, but, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most tables are all male.
> 
> I mean, here's a fairly random picture of gaming tables from Gen Con:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that male gamers need help finding all male tables?




Did I ever suggest that it's easy for women or hard for men to find their own gendered tables?   What does difficulty have to do with any of this?  Yes I know most are already male only tables, but unless it's specifically labeled as such what's to stop a girl from joining a group that wants to remain male only?   All that text and not a single specific reason why men shouldn't be able to request their own table.  Both should be able too.


----------



## MechaPilot

Hussar said:


> I mean, here's a fairly random picture of gaming tables from Gen Con:




I was looking at the ceiling in that picture.  Are those black circular things among the light banks security camera covers, or are they something else?


Edit: Nevermind.  I found another picture on Google with a clearer look at the ceiling.  Those are vents.  I got my hopes up for nothing.


----------



## billd91

Ace said:


> Ah no. In the end its always about control. In this case control of the content of gaming books and the gaming   sphere shifting  the hobby to    the  ends of social justice and Leftism. For those who don't share a prog agenda, its unwelcome.
> 
> It is is as IMO as C.S Lewis explained in God in the Dock
> 
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”




Are you seriously equating game companies including more examples of people found in broader society into the art and NPCs of their products with tyranny? If so, I think you have a very strange sense of proportion - and huge sense of entitlement to having gaming products cater exclusively to you and not other people who may be different.




Ace said:


> Also there are no public spaces in any context here anyway, Cons and game stores are private not public. Let me repeat that, stores and cons are as much a private space as ones home.




No, they're not. They're governed by laws, particularly civil rights laws, that aren't applicable to truly private spaces like the home. A game store can't deny service to anyone for arbitrary reasons, particularly not because of criteria that put people in protected classes. If they set out to serve the public, they have to serve all of the public. Most conventions fall into the same category because they want to attract participants rather than remain exclusive. 




Ace said:


> We don't need this woman's help, our hobby doesn't need her seeming anti White racism  or "help" which is more harm than good  and we are better off without them and without the harassers alike. Its self polices fine thanks.




No, no it doesn't self-police just fine. If it did, there wouldn't be harassment problems.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> And, honestly, that's the standard that should always be applied.  Be aware of your surroundings and don't be a dick.




So that's ok, if all in ear shot are comfortable, with rape jokes but not racist jokes?  Seriously are you just jerking my leg?


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> Don't you think that if we treated men and women the same that the opportunities and experiences (to any reasonable extent) would be the same?




Sure, if everybody did that (and if everybody had done that historically too), the opportunities and experiences of both genders could be the same. Unfortunately, that's not this world.

Hence, we have to treat some men as if they are barely socialised idiots.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> The reason people opposed her woman only table was because they thought it would make people think that women weren't safe in their community.




Yes. Which is a ridiculous reason for refusing. A group of women wanted the opportunity to game with other women, and it was refused because it might make other gamers question whether their community was safe for woman.

If the answer to the question "is this community safe for women?" isn't immediately and transparently "yes", then the problem isn't whatever prompted asking the question.

There are plenty of other reasons for wanting to have an opportunity to game with only women, and note that there is no suggestion that the individual women concerned wanted to _only_ game with women for the _entire_ con. She reportedly just wanted a table which was only women. Which is perfectly reasonable. Woman are a minority in most areas for gaming. Like for every minority an event like a con should be an opportunity to game with people that you cannot easily normally play with.

However, the difference with a "man-only" table is that it is hard to see a reasonable justification for a "man-only table", other than for the purposes of excluding an already excluded, and harassed minority. A "woman-only" table simply provides a great opportunity for woman to game together, for whatever reason, which is something difficult for most women to do normally (because they are a minority). A "man-only table" is just another way for the majority to exclude the minority.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> Just because it would never actually end up being equal doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best...
> Treating men and women the same would serve to help men and women be equal.  Obviously...




If the gaming community began right now, and only involved people who were not part of existing social structures which have thousands of years of history (and to some extent built on millions of years of physiological difference), that might be true. However, that's not this world either.

Treating two groups of people equally within a social system which has a past that was unequal, and / or is a part of a larger social system with a past (and present) that is unequal, just leads to perpetuating the existing inequality. That's not the best we can do.


----------



## Ace

MechaPilot said:


> I think that many of the women who have been harassed or assaulted would not agree with you that the results of self-policing thus far have been "fine."  As a woman who has been harassed and who has heard from a con-attending male friend that harassment and assault is a significant issue at gaming and anime cons, I would certainly not agree with that assertion.





Prove a high level of harassment exists in the hobby and get back to me, If you can bring proof beyond anecdotes, we can talk. Till than I don't trust the author of the articles motives  and won't work with or aid anyone who uses terms like White terrorist in the context she did


----------



## Ace

Hussar said:


> Bwuh?  Are you kidding me?  You honestly think it's a bad thing for the game books to be more inclusive?




I don't think either of those things are  necessary or valuable to the hobby in any way and I think Leftism  and SJW bunk is outright bad for it and ought to be kept far at bay. YMMV   

Diversity is more a weakness than a strength in most any case That however is a rather broad political topic and really not germane here, 

All this aside if people or companies want be inclusive and feel its a good call, they are welcome to do so, If they don't, that's fine too, Its a big hobby. I see no reason to push it and no benefit from it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Ace said:


> Prove a high level of harassment exists in the hobby and get back to me, If you can bring proof beyond anecdotes, we can talk. Till than I don't trust the author of the articles motives  and won't work with or aid anyone who uses terms like White terrorist in the context she did




I have never used those terms.  Will you work with me to come up with ideas to reduce instances of harassment and assault?


----------



## Lehrbuch

Ace said:


> Prove a high level of harassment exists in the hobby and get back to me, If you can bring proof beyond anecdotes, we can talk.




The extreme gender imbalance of a hobby that (you seem to think?) is inclusive and friendly certainly seems to tell us something.

Also, volume of anecdotes _is_ evidence too. It might not be evidence you like, and it is not quantitative, but it is still evidence of a problem.


----------



## Ace

billd91 said:


> Are you seriously equating game companies including more examples of people found in broader society into the art and NPCs of their products with tyranny? If so, I think you have a very strange sense of proportion - and huge sense of entitlement to having gaming products cater exclusively to you and not other people who may be different.




I'm not stopping anyone from writing anything and wouldn't. You miss the point, this is a trust issue. I don't trust someone who uses rhetoric  like she did and I suspect this is a camels nose under the tent for Leftist  though policing of my hobby . At its heart certain types Leftism are totalitarian, don't care what they destroy and are power hungry. 

If I'm wrong and its really about harassment and only that and there is a ton of it and you can prove me wrong well we'd all be well set rid of it.  I don't believe that though.

is there harassment, probably but its not a problem that anyone save an individual con or individual person at a con  need address.

We ,might play White Knights from time to time but the hobby doesn't need them. Its not broken, in bad shape or in need of political management    

And while I don't have any entitlement to the fruits of someones else's labor, I'll note that Nerdy fairly Conservative  Christian White guys (Gygax and Arneson) created the hobby and while we don't lay claim to it, its a shared thing but Nerdy White guys in general are the majority, 80% or more  of the hobby in the US and Europe. If they left, the hobby would be mostly gone overnight . If that picture above is accurate Gen Con would apparently basically cease to exist   Its morally ours and if you want people to cater too your whims , make it pay and they will. 

This is not Kindergarten, fairness, equal treatment or decent treatment are not assumed, pay up or  go roll your own.  if its good enough, c.f Blue Rose I might even buy it.


----------



## Ace

deleted


----------



## Lehrbuch

Ace said:


> I'll note that Nerdy fairly Conservative  Christian White guys (Gygax and Arneson) created the hobby and while we don't lay claim to it, its a shared thing but Nerdy White guys in general are the majority, 80% or more  of the hobby in the US and Europe.




Perhaps, but surely it would be *better* if a greater diversity of people played. Mostly because it would be more fun. It would also be more profitable, hence more and better product would be made, which will benefit even the white nerds.

Also, if true, isn't that 80% statistic part of the evidence you are looking for that harassment and exclusion are problems with the hobby?



Ace said:


> If they left, the hobby would be mostly gone overnight . If that picture above is accurate Gen Con would apparently basically cease to exist   Its morally ours and if you want people to cater too your whims , make it pay and they will.




Sadly, someone proposing the "solution" of "Going Galt" doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Ace

Lehrbuch said:


> The extreme gender imbalance of a hobby that (you seem to think?) is inclusive and friendly certainly seems to tell us something.
> 
> Also, volume of anecdotes _is_ evidence too. It might not be evidence you like, and it is not quantitative, but it is still evidence of a problem.






 Different genders are different Women not being much  into D&D it isn't a problem any more than guys not being into crochet or knitting.

In any case anecdotes are not evidence even in volume. I need good proof. Enough sworn statements from trustworthy persons would do it and I'd need a lot.


----------



## MechaPilot

Ace said:


> Different genders are different Women not being much  into D&D it isn't a problem any more than guys not being into crochet or knitting.




I don't believe the issue is one of women not being interested in D&D.  If I may, I think the issue is that women who are interested in gaming feel unwelcome or unsafe at gaming events.  After my personal harassment experience and hearing from a male friend who I trust, I know that I would not feel comfortable or safe going to a con, despite my being a long time DM and player, and despite many people telling me that they think I would enjoy the overall con experience.


----------



## Dannager

This is what's standing in the way, folks. It isn't people who like harassment. It isn't people who like to make insensitive jokes. It isn't people who enable those who treat women poorly. It's a massive, frustrated, bitter segment of primarily American culture, and it's from this core set of closely-held beliefs that _nearly all_ the other problems are perpetuated. The "conservative Christian white guys" crowd has had it really good for a really long time, and it's only recently that they've begun to appreciate that the world they're comfortable in is shrinking around them. They see every attempt at progress as an attack on the superiority they expect to enjoy, and _that will never, ever change._ There are people in this thread trying to reason that very demographic into supporting efforts to curb harassment, but _that will never work_ because their reasons for opposing those efforts are not reasons you are capable of doing anything about. The best you can do is to shine a spotlight on it, show others what this crowd's behavior _actually looks like_ and the kind of damage it does, and make maddeningly slow, incremental progress.

The whole point of the quotation, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice," is that progress _takes time and patience._ It _always_ wins in the end, but in the moment it can look like a standstill.


----------



## Ace

Lehrbuch said:


> Perhaps, but surely it would be *better* if a greater diversity of people played. Mostly because it would be more fun. It would also be more profitable, hence more and better product would be made, which will benefit even the white nerds.
> 
> .




No it wouldn't. The exclusivity of the hobby, its unwritten rules and customs and tolerances are part of its benefit for those Nerds 



Lehrbuch said:


> Also, if true, isn't that 80% statistic part of the evidence you are looking for that harassment and exclusion are problems with the hobby?
> 
> .




Not at all. Most people are not interested in a mixture of improve theater , bookkeeping and wargaming. Its a bizarre way to to have fun and most people are not only not smart enough for the hobby but would consider playing a Space captain or an Elf Paladin to be childish. 

And yes many people play computer RPG's its not the same hobby even if there is overlap. 




Lehrbuch said:


> Sadly, someone proposing the "solution" of "Going Galt" doesn't surprise me.




You misread me  I'm just point out the facts here, not suggesting anyone leave,


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ace said:


> ...is there harassment, probably but its not a problem that anyone save an individual con or individual person at a con need address.




That's the kind of attitude that lets social ills fester to toxicity.



Ace said:


> No it wouldn't. The exclusivity of the hobby, its unwritten rules and customs and tolerances are part of its benefit for those Nerds




No good human truly benefits from injustices.


----------



## Ace

MechaPilot said:


> I have never used those terms.  Will you work with me to come up with ideas to reduce instances of harassment and assault?




Coldly, No.  In any case until I can be sure there is no other agenda in play and that the problem is real, its not my problem unless its in my face


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Frickin'-A! Now I can't get past p67.


----------



## Ace

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's the kind of attitude that lets social ills fester to toxicity.
> 
> 
> No good human truly benefits from injustices.




I don't care. I'm not trying to improve the world. Its not my task to do, I'm not smart enough and neither is anyone else.


As Goethe  said 

Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean.

My door ain't "the hobby" its my group and my step is clean. 

Clean your step and move on.


----------



## Dannager

Ace said:


> its not my problem unless its in my face




Spoken like a true member of a community.


----------



## Dannager

Ace said:


> I'm not trying to improve the world.




Guys, this isn't even out of context. He actually meant it to sound exactly the way it sounds.


----------



## MechaPilot

Ace said:


> Coldly, No.  In any case until I can be sure there is no other agenda in play and that the problem is real, its not my problem unless its in my face




Would you at least be in favor of security cameras at cons, so as to gather proof of how much harassment and assault occurs, and to catch those who do commit harassment and assault?


----------



## Dannager

I have a sneaking suspicion that the "It's not my problem unless it's in my face" attitude would _utterly evaporate_ should he catch wind of a rumor of straight conservative Christian white dudes facing harassment for their beliefs at a convention.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Ace said:


> As Goethe said "Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean."
> 
> My door ain't "the hobby" its my group and my step is clean.




Sounds like you have no experience with a leaf blower. 

Like all good quotes, this has a double meaning. If you sweep just your step, you are only dumping your rubbish into your neighbour's yard.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

I am no sure what the fascination with security cameras is.  Most major conventions are held at facilities that already have some.  In any typical venue, you will never have enough to cover every interaction.  Normally there are more in places like the vendor area to try and prevent theft.  You will have an extremely hard time covering tables to the point where speech can be heard clearly.  More cameras can help prevent physical acts that can be seen in camera, but the worst normally happen in private spaces like hotel rooms.

I have not seen a fire storm of privacy advocates saying no cameras.  They help, but they will never be enough.  Most of us carry cameras in the form of smart phones, so they are pretty much always available.  Or recorders in the form of cell phones.  

As for Ace's assertion that game stores and conventions are no "public" spaces, only in his own narrow definition of what public is which is not the general use.  Game stores are private in that they are owned or leased by an individual or business but they are treated as public spaces in most of the law.  For example, the Americans with Disabiliites Act which requires that they be accessible.  Certain civil rights laws limit reasons why you cannot serve people.

I am pretty sure every major convention has an anti-harassment policy in place already.  Many game stores do not have a formal one and the owners can probably protect themselves better if they had one.

Finally, there is too much focus on women here.  There are many forms of humor I find funny in a comedy club which is inappropriate for me, a non-professional comic who is not in a comedy club to say at a convention.  It does not have to be a bad joke about a woman.  I am a straight, white guy and I find comments I hear at times that are offensive to me because I know they are poorly thought out considering the group that is there.  I am not afraid to speak up when I hear them.

In regard to the question about a bad joke that the audience does not mind, my personal favorite example is immigration jokes.  I do not look like an immigrant or sound like one, but I have a green card and I am an immigrant.  You would never know unless I told you. Don't assume your audience is what you think it is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ace said:


> I don't care. I'm not trying to improve the world. Its not my task to do, I'm not smart enough and neither is anyone else.
> 
> 
> As Goethe  said
> 
> Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean.
> 
> My door ain't "the hobby" its my group and my step is clean.
> 
> Clean your step and move on.




Göthe, hmm?

How about a few words from Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller?  Here is the original version of the oft-revised poem he is most famous for, and its translation:



> Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
> habe ich geschwiegen;
> ich war ja kein Kommunist.
> 
> Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
> habe ich geschwiegen;
> ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
> 
> Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
> habe ich nicht protestiert;
> ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
> 
> Als sie die Juden holten,
> habe ich geschwiegen;
> ich war ja kein Jude.
> 
> Als sie mich holten,
> gab es keinen mehr,
> der protestieren konnte.
> 
> (Translation)
> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a communist.
> 
> When they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> I was not a social democrat.
> 
> When they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> I was not a trade unionist.
> 
> When they came for the Jews,
> I remained silent;
> I wasn't a Jew.
> 
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out.




Here's some appropriate MLK for good measure:


> Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.




Inaction just gives time for the problem to grow worse until it is at your doorstep, by which time your göethe-esque broom may be insufficient to the task of sweeping it away.


----------



## MechaPilot

Myrdin Potter said:


> I am no sure what the fascination with security cameras is.  Most major conventions are held at facilities that already have some.  In any typical venue, you will never have enough to cover every interaction.  Normally there are more in places like the vendor area to try and prevent theft.  You will have an extremely hard time covering tables to the point where speech can be heard clearly.  More cameras can help prevent physical acts that can be seen in camera, but the worst normally happen in private spaces like hotel rooms.
> 
> I have not seen a fire storm of privacy advocates saying no cameras.  They help, but they will never be enough.  Most of us carry cameras in the form of smart phones, so they are pretty much always available.  Or recorders in the form of cell phones.




Many people do carry cell phones: this is true (I do not, but that's a separate issue).  However, assume that I do carry a cell phone.  I would imagine that if someone were groping me and I reached into my purse to get photographic proof of the crime on my phone that he would stop as soon as my phone came out of my purse.

Also, my first instinct upon being groped would not be to reach for my phone.  It would be to break the criminal physical contact being forced upon me.  Once I do that, I lose the ability to record evidence of the crime.  I then have to rely on someone else having seen the assault, as well as that person having been willing to get involved by filming the assault, and upon that person having reacted quickly enough to catch it on film.

By contrast, security cameras are always on and are never unwilling to record something because they don't want to get involved.  This is why I think security cameras are an important part of stopping harassment and assault.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannager said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that the "It's not my problem unless it's in my face" attitude would _utterly evaporate_ should he catch wind of a rumor of straight conservative Christian white dudes facing harassment for their beliefs at a convention.




I don't know that he IS a "Christian"- "your problem is not my problem" isn't usually considered a philosophy consistent with most formulations of Christian theology.   It is DEFINITELY not in accord with "works" based formulations, to be sure.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

MechaPilot - I have not seen any opposition to securirty cameras here at all.  They are not the only or even the best solution to the problem, they are just a tool.  The best solution is community awareness coupled with a well written and enforced harassment policy.  

We will never cure the ills of the world 100%.  A person who will grope is highly likely to do so even with community awareness and the good and enforced policy.  The best result would be that it is reported and the person removed.

If I were to organize a con (and it has been 30+ years since I did although I did run weekly Magic tournaments for quite a while) I would probably try and pick a venue that had some cameras but I doubt a venue would install more unless I was a major event.  

I have security cameras in my house connected to to NAS and even running 4 can be bandwidth intensive.  To add 8 cameras to an event and to use a lower level program like Blue Iris would run close to $1K and I would risk getting the cameras stolen.  The only venues that are covered to the extent you want are casinos with cameras over every table and they are not used to run conventions and many do not record sound.

So more cameras increase the chances of inappropriate behavior being caught and makes enforcement easier but they are just a tool.


----------



## fjw70

Sorry didn't mean to laugh at that last post. My thumb inadvertently hit the button and I don't know how to unlaugh a post.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

If someone does something to upset you (not harm upset) then you should call them out of they are jerks and double down report them if they say they dodnt mean to and apologize that should be it...

Putting your hands on someone against there will isn't even close to that...this whole "or gropeing" is a crime assault is a crime you repert that and call the police. 

How did we get from 0 tolerance for. Thought crime and saying insensitive things being grouped with assaults?

Harassment is the grey area, if I say something that upsets someone an appology should be all it takes not booting me from a con.

If someone gripes someone that is a crime and a cop should be called... Me jokeing about anime tenicle open should not...words and deeds are not the same.


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> Sure, if everybody did that (and if everybody had done that historically too), the opportunities and experiences of both genders could be the same. Unfortunately, that's not this world.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

That's a logical fallacy.  It's not a reasonable rebuttal.

Attempting to solve a problem that will never be solved isn't an issue.  It's just doing the best you can.  Do you have a different, logical, reason as to why treating men and women the same wouldn't help lead to the same opportunities and experiences for both genders?



Lehrbuch said:


> Hence, we have to treat some men as if they are barely socialised idiots.




"Some men", which men?  The ones behaving badly?  So the criteria is behavior, not gender, unless you're suggesting we treat all men like that....



Lehrbuch said:


> However, the difference with a "man-only" table is that it is hard to see a reasonable justification for a "man-only table"




I'm arguing that you don't even need to provide a reasonable justification in the first place to have a gendered only table.  If a group of women walk up to convention staff and request a female only table they should be granted it and not be required to give a correct answer, as if it were a test, as to why they really wanted it.



Lehrbuch said:


> A "woman-only" table simply provides a great opportunity for woman to game together, for whatever reason, which is something difficult for most women to do normally (because they are a minority). A "man-only table" is just another way for the majority to exclude the minority.




So all women need are "whatever reason", but you don't grant that same allowance for males, simply because of whats between their legs...  That's sexist by the dictionary definition.  Do you define yourself as a feminist?  Aren't feminists always pointing to the dictionary definition of feminism to show that their not "man haters"?  What is the dictionary definition of feminism?  It's in so many words, depending on the dictionary being used, about equality between the sexes.  So the feminists that want equality are actually, like me, part of the problem?



Lehrbuch said:


> Treating two groups of people equally within a social system which has a past that was unequal, and / or is a part of a larger social system with a past (and present) that is unequal, just leads to perpetuating the existing inequality. That's not the best we can do.




So when blacks first got to vote, their votes should have counted more than once (say twice as much, so 2 votes for every vote) just to even out the past imbalance?  So you create inequality to balance out the past inequalities?  Also you seem to be passing down the sins of the parent onto the child, or even passing along the sins of some members of that race onto all members of that race.  Lets say there's a kid that was born after blacks got the right to vote and he isn't able to vote at the age of 18 because the past injustices haven't balanced out, or there's a white person who never owned slaves and was always against it and actually fought in a war to end it - their being discriminated against as well because the only reason their vote counts less is skin color not behavior.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, your attempts to balance out past inequalities by reversing said inequalities today is pretty damn sick.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Wouldn't a man only table also be a protection for women...yea that's were we put guys who have a bad track record interacting with women but who are not jerks enough to kick out...


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> No.  it's still racist and it's still a bad thing.  Why is that hard to understand?  Racist jokes are racist, regardless of who tells them or where.  Just because everyone around that person is also a racist doesn't suddenly mean that the comment is not a bad thing.  Taken to an extreme, you can justify pretty much any behaviour that way.  It's okay to do or say anything, so long as enough people around you agree?




If no one is harmed, there's nothing wrong with it doing it.  No one would be harmed by a racist joke told at a KKK rally.  It's also protected free speech.  Just because you are I don't like a type of speech, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed to be said by others.


----------



## Maxperson

werecorpse said:


> imo what matters is if the person you tell the potentially offensive joke to is offended. Not if you said it in a joking manner and never really meant to offend them.
> edit:and even if they aren't a joke denigrating a certain racial group is still racist.




I disagree.  Intent does matter.  Also, the very people into political correctness and touting how offending people is bad, completely ignore the rather significant portion of America that is offended by excessive political correctness.  I keep having that offense shoved down my throat on a daily basis and no one gives half a fig that I'm offended.


----------



## cmad1977

Ace said:


> Coldly, No.  In any case until I can be sure there is no other agenda in play and that the problem is real, its not my problem unless its in my face




Who cares if black people are I chains? That's down south... Not in my face.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Funny when I was growing up what people want to dismiss as PC was simple good manners. Always was before someone decided good manners was an infringement on the right to be rude a$$wipes, so rename it, blame a specific group for expecting good manners and cry about being the victim of the oppression of good manners. Bloody hell.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> Putting your hands on someone against there will isn't even close to that...this whole "or gropeing" is a crime assault is a crime you repert that and call the police.




As has been noted, the police are often not interested in dealing with what they think of as either trivial or poorly documented offenses.  A "she said, he said" complaint without hard physical evidence and without evidence of real physical harm is apt to be dismissed by the police.  And, insofar as our (hopefully) evidence-based justice system can't really work with an unsupported assertion from one person, this is understandable.



> How did we get from 0 tolerance for. Thought crime and saying insensitive things being grouped with assaults?
> 
> Harassment is the grey area, if I say something that upsets someone an appology should be all it takes not booting me from a con.




Well, anecdotally, these incidents are typically not all that isolated.  If you catch someone at sexist (or racist) abuse in one instance, that likely speaks to a pattern of behavior.  And I've never personally seen someone ejected from a convention for a single offense, myself.  I've only seen it happen when a pattern of behavior is established.  And the pattern of behavior is harrassment.



> If someone gripes someone that is a crime and a cop should be called... Me jokeing about anime tenicle open should not...words and deeds are not the same.




With respect, that's really situation dependent.  Your "joking" can seem a lot worse from the other end - especially if that joke is in the form of, "Well, maybe she needs some anime tentacle to loosen her up a bit," which is apt to seem a lot more like a threat, or a statement that it is okay to subject women to sexual violence.

And that's a major portion of the point, here.  For you, it may seem like an offhand comment. But to the other person, it is one comment in a stream, all apparently targeted at them, and that starts to be threatening.  Remember that human behaviors often follow a "normal distribution".  If a population displays enough minor offenses, that will generally imply that there are some few who are willing to engage n major offenses - if enough men are jerks to women in "jokes" (as it it was actually funny?) that implies that there's some in the bunch who are willing to go farther, and the environment becomes much less safe.

I mean, consider how strongly some folks have reacted to the "white male terrorist" comment.  Lots and lots of pushback.  If "something that upsets you" is really not that big a deal, why the uproar over that?  What, can't you guys take a joke?


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> Funny when I was growing up what people want to dismiss as PC was simple good manners. Always was before someone decided good manners was an infringement on the right to be rude a$$wipes, so rename it, blame a specific group for expecting good manners and cry about being the victim of the oppression of good manners. Bloody hell.




No, PC is now over reaching making petty things, like saying something is crazy, is now frowned upon.


----------



## Obryn

Ace said:


> And while I don't have any entitlement to the fruits of someones else's labor, I'll note that Nerdy fairly Conservative  Christian White guys (Gygax and Arneson) created the hobby and while we don't lay claim to it, its a shared thing but Nerdy White guys in general are the majority, 80% or more  of the hobby in the US and Europe. If they left, the hobby would be mostly gone overnight . If that picture above is accurate Gen Con would apparently basically cease to exist   Its morally ours and if you want people to cater too your whims , make it pay and they will.



I can't tell anymore if this is genuine or a parody account.

What do you mean by "morally ours" while also "[not] lay[ing] claim to it"?

How can you own a hobby for that matter, morally or otherwise?


----------



## Jeanneliza

Taneras said:


> No, PC is now over reaching making petty things, like saying something is crazy, is now frowned upon.




Not sure how old you are, those kinds of comments were frowned upon long before PC, again, good manners. When I was a child if any of us were tempted to laugh or joke at ANY disability my grandmother would snatch us right up, look us in the eye and remind us "There but for the grace of God go I". I think a few here should try putting themselves in the shoes of those whose opinions they dismiss so lightly, whose real anecdotes are treated with disdain, and ask yourself, "If that WERE my own experience, would I feel or think differently". You judge others based on YOUR experience instead of theirs, and that is always a mistake if they are not the same experiences.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have never been to a kkk thing but I would think that that is exactly the place for a racist joke...maybe one of the only




I didnt think we were talking about how the joke is recieved, but rather what the moral/ethical quality if the joke is. Its just as racist at a kkk rally. Its just as morally/ethically bankrupt.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> As has been noted, the police are often not interested in dealing with what they think of as either trivial or poorly documented offenses.  A "she said, he said" complaint without hard physical evidence and without evidence of real physical harm is apt to be dismissed by the police.  And, insofar as our (hopefully) evidence-based justice system can't really work with an unsupported assertion from one person, this is understandable.



 that is beyond us but must be dellt with as well that is police not doing ther job



> Well, anecdotally, these incidents are typically not all that isolated.  If you catch someone at sexist (or racist) abuse in one instance, that likely speaks to a pattern of behavior.  And I've never personally seen someone ejected from a convention for a single offense, myself.  I've only seen it happen when a pattern of behavior is established.  And the pattern of behavior is harrassment.



 your version makes sense but I was responding to people saying kick people out first time some one accuses them...

As someone who gets told all the time it's easy to take offense at things I say when I mean none it basicly kicks me out of all cons for ever...I pay a few hundred dollars put to sometimes a thousand and go with a group... Kicking me out for something stupid I said may ruin my only vacation for the year...by all means tell me I offended I will appologies be use I don't want anyone upset...but people on this thread said just kick out


> With respect, that's really situation dependent.  Your "joking" can seem a lot worse from the other end - especially if that joke is in the form of, "Well, maybe she needs some anime tentacle to loosen her up a bit," which is apt to seem a lot more like a threat, or a statement that it is okay to subject women to sexual violence.



 the problem is that in 30 years I have found almost no ability other then not talking to not offend even just coppying what others say I have been told it comes out diffrent and I can't just not talk if I am rping


----------



## fjw70

Here's my take. I am a straight white male. I have no idea how prevalent this harassment and assault is in the gaming community. I have never seen it personally and no one I know has told me it has happened to them.

That being said I think we should do what we can to eliminate it from the community while being mindful of not going overboard into punishing the slightest perceived slight. 

At large public venues such as conventions there needs to be a significant security presence. Any gathering of large amounts of the general public needs this. Any other security measures (such as cameras) should be employed as is reasonably affordable for the venue. Allegations of misconduct must be treated by security very seriously and dealt with appropriately. This means that each incident should be judged on its merits and action taken based on the facts and circumstances of the incident. Depending on the incident the action could be a warning or expulsion. I don't like blanket policies like every report resulting in an expulsion. But each report needs to be taken seriously and not simply dismissed.

For game stores the security is likely to be less due to the scale of the operation, but game store owners and employees need to treat these complaints just as seriously and take appropriate action as the facts and circumstances suggest. 

People being harassed or attacked need to report these violations, both to the venue and police (if such action is a crime).  Don't expect the venue to the escalate matters (even though they should).

Finally, each of us (men and women) needs to re-examine our behavior to make sure we are not inadvertently contributing to uncomfortable situations, and we need to step in when we see others behaving badly.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Free speech means that the government cannot restrict your speech (special categories like yelling fire in a crowded theatre excluded).  That does not mean your speech has no consequences or that you can walk up to any podium at a gaming event and take it over and say whatever you want.

The government cannot stop you from screaming your harassment towards someone (there are laws that apply that can restrict it but this is a general point).  A game store or a con can kick you out and your free speech rights are not effected at all.


----------



## Mallus

Ace said:


> At its heart certain types Leftism are totalitarian, don't care what they destroy and are power hungry.



Pick any ideological position or point on the political spectrum and you'll find people with an unhealthy, authoritarian bent. As Billy Pilgrim (or Vonnegut) would say, so it goes.   



> And while I don't have any entitlement to the fruits of someones else's labor, I'll note that Nerdy fairly Conservative  Christian White guys (Gygax and Arneson) created the hobby and while we don't lay claim to it, its a shared thing but Nerdy White guys in general are the majority, 80% or more  of the hobby in the US and Europe. If they left, the hobby would be mostly gone overnight . If that picture above is accurate Gen Con would apparently basically cease to exist   Its morally ours and if you want people to cater too your whims , make it pay and they will.



M.A.R. Barker did his share in the early days of the hobby by creating & Tekumel/Empire of the Petal Throne. He was a Muslim. Margaret Weis either wrote or co-wrote some of the most famous D&D intellectual properties in existence. Jennell Jaquays wrote classic material for Judges Guild and is trans. These are founding and/or important figures in the world of tabletop gaming.  

The hobby's always be more than just Conservative White Christian guys. Personally-speaking, while my group --myself excluded-- is fairly, ahem, susceptible to the sun's rays, there isn't a Conservative among them. We range from "Democrat" to "Socialist Workers Party" (insert talk-radio joke about 'running the gamut from A to B' here).

Who do you think is chiming in w/support for the essay in the OP right here? I'm guessing %80 of them are Nerdy White Guys. 

(Actually, the one bright spot in all of this is the community's reaction. Kinda like with the Sad/Rabid Puppies fiasco. A small group of people decided they defined the SF community. Then they were... proven wrong.).


----------



## Dannager

Maxperson said:


> Also, the very people into political correctness and touting how offending people is bad, completely ignore the rather significant portion of America that is offended by excessive political correctness.  I keep having that offense shoved down my throat on a daily basis and no one gives half a fig that I'm offended.




You're right. We don't really care if a lack of tolerance and acceptance on your part causes you to be offended by others judging you for that very same lack of tolerance and acceptance. _*That's the point.*_

If this bothers you, _good._ Let's hope it continues bothering you until you finally decide to stop characterizing tolerance as "shoving political correctness down my throat." Or maybe you never will, and you'll become the modern-day equivalent of the old racist guy that everyone merely tolerates because he refused to change with the times.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Mallus said:


> Pick any ideological position or point on the political spectrum and you'll find people with an unhealthy, authoritarian bent. As Billy Pilgrim (or Vonnegut) would say, so it goes.
> 
> 
> M.A.R. Barker did his share in the early days of the hobby by creating & Tekumel/Empire of the Petal Throne. He was a Muslim. Margaret Weis either wrote or co-wrote some of the most famous D&D intellectual properties in existence. Jennell Jaquays wrote classic material for Judges Guild and is trans. These are founding and/or important figures in the world of tabletop gaming.
> 
> The hobby's always be more than just Conservative White Christian guys. Personally-speaking, while my group --myself excluded-- is fairly, ahem, susceptible to the sun's rays, there isn't a Conservative among them. We range from "Democrat" to "Socialist Workers Party" (insert talk-radio joke about 'running the gamut from A to B' here).
> 
> Who do you think is chiming in w/support for the essay in the OP right here? I'm guessing %80 of them are Nerdy White Guys.
> 
> (Actually, the one bright spot in all of this is the community's reaction. Kinda like with the Sad/Rabid Puppies fiasco. A small group of people decided they defined the SF community. Then they were... proven wrong.).




Not to mention designers like Lee Gold who started up the first RPG APA, and then went on to design games for FGU and SJG. (That's a lot of acronyms.)


----------



## Dannager

Mallus said:


> The hobby's always be more than just Conservative White Christian guys.




But haven't you heard? _They were here first._ We owe them a debt that can never be repaid, except by ignoring or enabling harassment so that they can enjoy the fleeting time they have left!


----------



## Christopher Helton

If anyone is interested, there are a number of charity bundles at the DriveThru sites to benefit RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network):

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/8877/RAINN


----------



## Mallus

Christopher Helton said:


> Not to mention designers like Lee Gold who started up the first RPG APA, and then went on to design games for FGU and SJG. (That's a lot of acronyms.)



Was Lee Gold the woman who was instrumental in building the whole West Coast gaming scene in the 1970s? Or it that someone else whose name I'm forgetting (read a great article about her a few years ago -- damn middle-aged memory!).


----------



## Christopher Helton

Mallus said:


> Was Lee Gold the woman who was instrumental in building the whole West Coast gaming scene in the 1970s? Or it that someone else whose name I'm forgetting (read a great article about her a few years ago -- damn middle-aged memory!).




I don't know. I know that she was active in a number of fandoms and convention scenes.


----------



## Mallus

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't know. I know that she was active in a number of fandoms and convention scenes.



Found it, courtesy of Grognardia: http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/04/interview-with-lee-gold.html

Who needs memory when you have Google?


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> Not sure how old you are, those kinds of comments were frowned upon long before PC, again, good manners.




So you're telling me that long before the idea of political correctness, so basically long before the 1970's, it was frowned upon saying something to the effect of...

"Man, wasn't that a crazy ending to that movie?"

Didn't think so.  I said calling *something* crazy, not someone.

Moreover, Christopher Helton, the person you told your story too and the person who created this article, in this very thread, told someone that they're paranoid.  And was unapologetic when he was called out on it.  Crazy, paranoid, both mental disabilities that people struggle with.  Is Christopher Helton part of the harassment problem within the gaming community?


----------



## Taneras

doctorbadwolf said:


> I didnt think we were talking about how the joke is recieved, but rather what the moral/ethical quality if the joke is. Its just as racist at a kkk rally. Its just as morally/ethically bankrupt.




Yes but in this case its told in the form of a joke and not meant to be morally/ethically bankrupt its meant to make people laugh.  For jokes, intent and audience perception around you matter.

Switch the racist joke told at a KKK rally and put that same racist joke being told by a black man to a room full of his black friends, all of whom laugh.  Is there a difference?  I think there is.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> Yes but in this case its told in the form of a joke and not meant to be morally/ethically bankrupt its meant to make people laugh.  For jokes, intent and audience perception around you matter.
> 
> Switch the racist joke told at a KKK rally and put that same racist joke being told by a black man to a room full of his black friends, all of whom laugh.  Is there a difference?  I think there is.



Forget jokes for a moment... Of I'm walking my dog and see and old black man walking and I smile and not saying "howdy" is that any diffrent then if he was a beutful woman? Am I sexiest for saying hello to one when in the same situation I would say and do the same to the other?

I ask because I normally do to everyone BUT there is a feminist video claiming men are pigs and half the things they say are generic good mornings 

A joke can hurt someone's feelings of it does apologize and move on.  But don't kick someone out of there vacacrion be use you took offense where non was meant...and for God sale realize words are not the same as violence.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

GMforPowergamers - no one is advocating throwing anyone out for one joke, but so,e "jokes" are not funny and should be carefully considered before opening your mouth.  

And if you think that words cannot be a form of violence then you have a basic misunderstanding that cannot be solved in a message board.  I personally think that too many people are too thinskinned.  That does not make me right or refute the fact the suicides happen every year based solely on words with no physical violence.


----------



## Fergurg

Myrdin Potter said:


> Free speech means that the government cannot restrict your speech (special categories like yelling fire in a crowded theatre excluded).  That does not mean your speech has no consequences or that you can walk up to any podium at a gaming event and take it over and say whatever you want.
> 
> The government cannot stop you from screaming your harassment towards someone (there are laws that apply that can restrict it but this is a general point).  A game store or a con can kick you out and your free speech rights are not effected at all.




Welcome to the thread. I'm guessing you just got here because, A) you number of posts and B) you are addressing a topic that hasn't really been discussed. Nobody is arguing over whether or not a convention can or should throw people out over harassment that does not cross over into criminal activity. They clearly can and probably should. That is not the biggest point of contention.

The big point of contention is what action a convention should take when it is unclear whether or not the harassment took place. Multiple people have stated that the accused should be thrown out automatically, whether the accusation is true or false. Some have argued for removing both. I have argued for doing what you can to find the truth and that it is better to allow someone to get away was harassment than to punish someone for action they did not do. I also have supported the idea of increased security and cameras, so that whoever is telling the truth can simply say, "Look at the footage."

There is something new I thought of - sometimes, people in the moment react and get entrenched in their views of what happened, and realize later that they were wrong. For example, there have been many reality shows where two people have a huge conflict over something that was said, only to have one of them say at the Reunion show that, "I watched the footage and I was wrong in how I interpreted it/heard it/said it." You'd be surprised how many time simply having a third party step in and mediate or even just show the footage solves the problem.


----------



## Fergurg

Myrdin Potter said:


> GMforPowergamers - no one is advocating throwing anyone out for one joke, <snip>




Yes, there ARE people on this thread who are advocating for that very thing.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ace said:


> Nerdy White guys in general are the majority, 80% or more of the hobby in the US and Europe. If they left, the hobby would be mostly gone overnight . If that picture above is accurate Gen Con would apparently basically cease to exist Its morally ours and if you want people to cater too your whims , make it pay and they will.




As a nerdy white guy, the idea that by encouraging more people who _aren't_ nerdy white guys will automatically lose all the nerdy white guys is laughable. One of the reasons that I enjoy RPGs is transporting my head to strange worlds and the fruits of other peoples' imaginations. And when people have different experiences to mine the fruits of their imagination are likely to be different from mine. This is going to add richness and depth to any world where we both play. So as a nerdy white guy _the presence of those not like me makes my RPGs better._ I won't say that diversity improves everything, but tabletop RPGs are right up there with cooking as one of the things it definitely improves.

Now as a nerdy white guy would you stop trying to speak for me?


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:


> Forget jokes for a moment... Of I'm walking my dog and see and old black man walking and I smile and not saying "howdy" is that any diffrent then if he was a beutful woman? Am I sexiest for saying hello to one when in the same situation I would say and do the same to the other?
> 
> I ask because I normally do to everyone BUT there is a feminist video claiming men are pigs and half the things they say are generic good mornings
> 
> A joke can hurt someone's feelings of it does apologize and move on.  But don't kick someone out of there vacacrion be use you took offense where non was meant...and for God sale realize words are not the same as violence.




No I don't think that's sexist and the feminist videos you're referencing are likely what I'm referring too when I voice my concern for exactly what sorts of policies are going to be implemented.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Myrdin Potter said:


> GMforPowergamers - no one is advocating throwing anyone out for one joke, but so,e "jokes" are not funny and should be carefully considered before opening your mouth.
> 
> And if you think that words cannot be a form of violence then you have a basic misunderstanding that cannot be solved in a message board.  I personally think that too many people are too thinskinned.  That does not make me right or refute the fact the suicides happen every year based solely on words with no physical violence.




The only reason I am in this thread as annything other than a lurker is to argue against 1 strike your out suggesstions...

As for words and violence I didn't say no word ever caused any harm...but even the most vile thing I can imagine (short of intimidation through threat of violence witch bridges the two) are not equal to physical violence...


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Also, the very people into political correctness and touting how offending people is bad, completely ignore the rather significant portion of America that is offended by excessive political correctness.  I keep having that offense shoved down my throat on a daily basis and no one gives half a fig that I'm offended.




The irony being that calling it "political correctness" is itself an *act* of political correctness - an alteration of the presentation to protect people's delicate sensibilities.  It is putting a pleasant name on it, to make it more palatable.

Let us call it what it really is - Treating people with thoughtfulness, compassion and decency.  

We call it "political correctness" on the one side to not be offensive and accuse someone of acting like a jerk, and on the other side to cover up that the argument is over it being socially unacceptable to act like a jerk.


----------



## Taneras

Umbran said:


> The irony being that calling it "political correctness" is itself an *act* of political correctness - an alteration of the presentation to protect people's delicate sensibilities.  It is putting a pleasant name on it, to make it more palatable.
> 
> Let us call it what it really is - Treating people with thoughtfulness, compassion and decency.
> 
> We call it "political correctness" on the one side to not be offensive and accuse someone of acting like a jerk, and on the other side to cover up that the argument is over it being socially unacceptable to act like a jerk.




You'll find out that your in the vast minority when speech like "America is a melting pot" and "I think the most qualified person should get the job." are considered politically incorrect.

At some points we have to expect adults to act as such.

That's not to say that all of political correctness is of that sort, but let's not pretend that it's only about reasonable objections to offensive and harmful speech.  It's being hijacked by hypersensitivity.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> The only reason I am in this thread as annything other than a lurker is to argue against 1 strike your out suggesstions...




Correct me if I am wrong, but you have suggested that you *frequently* make comments that folks would or have problems with.   Let's say it was three strikes instead of one - how long would it take you to go through them at a convention?   

Somewhere, at some point, we have to hold folks accountable for what they do.  How many strikes do we give someone before we realize that the issue isn't that other folks are too sensitive, but that the speaker is too *insensitive* for the gathering?


----------



## Ace

I'm not.

I'm used to pretty diverse groups, every race, creed, gender gay and straight myself though we all basically are part of a gaming monoculture. 

However diverse and inclusive aren't actual things, they are dog whistles to political correctness, I've never seen anyone pushing diversity or inclusiveness who wasn't pushing Cultural Marxism as well. We don't need that  in our hobby since its basically a DC.S.Lewis Tyranny of Good Intentions.


----------



## dungeon crawler

I know this stuff happens. I am a "White Christian Conservative" and a small group Pastor who ran D&D encounters for my FLGS until cancer and chemotherapy ended it. I did not and will not put up with ANYONE being harassed, bullied or mistreated in one of my games. I run games at conventions and the same rules apply there. Many people have told me  how much they appreciated the way they were treated at my games. Any harassment is wrong words don't just hurt sometimes they kill.


----------



## Ace

Dannager said:


> Spoken like a true member of a community.




Its not a community.  It was once, but given the cultural changes, is no longer.  Its become political and that is an end game. I won't help  beyond what the law requires,people whose politics I loathe and who clearly loathe me 

Let me use a geek anaology 

Imagine a kingdom called Convention 

I'm a crusty old Magic User , a bunch of young   Adventurers come up to me and say "Come we mist defeat the evil for Milady" 

I'm too old not to see a trap and I politely decline.

They ask why

I say "1st Milady just called my people scum , second I think its a trap set by The Lords of Night  and the masters of Cultural Marxism. I don't trust her and I suspect agents and dupes alike  Second  only my barony is my responsibility, its clean, free of monsters and a nice place to be. Go fix your own problems." 

Does that make more sense?

if tI saw  was a real problem that effected us all, I dunno like a government regulation I'd be all over that but it isn't. So I'm out ,


----------



## Umbran

Taneras said:


> You'll find out that your in the vast minority when speech like "America is a melting pot" and "I think the most qualified person should get the job." are considered politically incorrect.




Yes, well, those are both based in sociopolitical issues much larger than what we can speak about here - but let's just say I can see why those statements can be problematic.  



> At some points we have to expect adults to act as such.




Yes, but that's a two edged sword.  It is acting like an adult to disregard some level of offensiveness.  It is also acting like an adult to help those less fortunate than yourself, and to be thoughtful of others.



> It's being hijacked by hypersensitivity.




Sometimes, sure.  But it is also being hijacked by _hypo_sensitivity.  All tools can be misused.


----------



## Ace

dungeon crawler said:


> I know this stuff happens. I am a "White Christian Conservative" and a small group Pastor who ran D&D encounters for my FLGS until cancer and chemotherapy ended it. I did not and will not put up with ANYONE being harassed, bullied or mistreated in one of my games. I run games at conventions and the same rules apply there. Many people have told me  how much they appreciated the way they were treated at my games. Any harassment is wrong words don't just hurt sometimes they kill.




I do the exact same thing. Its a good policy 


Words don't kill, people kill. The chance of someone criminally  inciting violence against people in this hobby is basically nil. If people like the late Dallas Egbert have profound mental heath issues, they shouldn't play a game that involves pretending to be other people. They should seek help immediately 

However I don't go butting into other peoples business or trying to direct "The Hobby" Its not my place. You sir are sweeping your own proverbial step which is good, as am I, people tell me the same thing.but that is more than enough.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> The chance of someone criminally  inciting violence against people in this hobby is basically nil.




Provably wrong.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...on-tournament-shooting-plot-article-1.2334956


----------



## Ace

Moral ownership , Legal ownership  and Practical ownership are separate things. 

A crude analogy, PDF piracy which Io not advocate 

You write a PDF , you legally own it, you morally own it. Practically you don't since anyone with an internet connection can freely download it 

No one legally or practically owns the hobby and the  gaming hobby was  shared so no one lays claim to ownership but a reasonable claim that CCWG's have a moral claim to the hobby and ought to be given first say. 

Its not that way and I am fine with that however. 

Understand now?


----------



## Christopher Helton

Saying harassment isn't welcome isn't the same as saying that anyone "owns" the hobby. Strawman.


----------



## Ace

Christopher Helton said:


> Provably wrong.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...on-tournament-shooting-plot-article-1.2334956




Ah no. Pokemon is not the RPG hobby. There is overlap but many Pokemon players do not play RPG's and even if they did, the dispute was over a card tournament.

Its far closer to a poker game gone bad. 

That said  even it was a D&D game, once incident among millions of players is not a pattern. Killings by mentally well people over D&D are basically unknown and mentally ill people with some kinds of illness, the ones that could lead to violence shoudl not be playing anyway.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> Ah no. Pokemon is not the RPG hobby.




Moving the goal posts. We're talking about tabletop gaming. This article is about tabletop gaming, and the linked post that everyone is so upset about has "tabletop gaming" right in the topic. Just because there's proof of intended violence and criminal activity that doesn't fit the narrative that you're trying to push, that doesn't mean that you get to define what is being talked about. Sorry.

Next?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but you have suggested that you *frequently* make comments that folks would or have problems with.   Let's say it was three strikes instead of one - how long would it take you to go through them at a convention?
> 
> Somewhere, at some point, we have to hold folks accountable for what they do.  How many strikes do we give someone before we realize that the issue isn't that other folks are too sensitive, but that the speaker is too *insensitive* for the gathering?



Odds of me in one weekend being accused of harassment 3 times is rare...once is close enough to possible to scare me...


Now 3 strikes at getting people to look at me funny or tell me off is gurantied...3 strikes of "I didn't mean it that way" almost 100%


----------



## Ace

Christopher Helton said:


> Saying harassment isn't welcome isn't the same as saying that anyone "owns" the hobby. Strawman.




The woman who wrote that article is using rhetorical language suggestive if the Social Justice movement. This movement tries to control other peoples activity taking control over others media, c.f Gamergate .

Ergo I have to assume its such an attempt till proven otherwise, For them its always  about control.  If you think otherwise, you probably are too young to remember the US before these people got into academia and media, very different and while it needed some improvement, it didn't need to be turned into Stalinist Lite  and given i suspect she is trying to do the same to my hobby, I'm not going to help 

That said, no one here is pro bullying or harassment or against making gaming a pleasant activity. far from it, Its just I smell a trap. 

Now if you can prove me wrong and the woman was just a loudmouth and wants to apologize for her rhetoric and can show some real proof that load of women are being harassed and that its hurting the hobby, get back to me then.Till than, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


----------



## Mallus

Ace said:


> I'm used to pretty diverse groups, every race, creed, gender gay and straight myself though we all basically are part of a gaming monoculture.



What do you think defines this 'gaming monoculture'?

It doesn't sound like you and I are part of the same monoculture (disclosure: I've been gaming for 30 years, and can spit Star Trek references with the best of the nerds). Aside from 'liking to pretend we're elves' what defines the culture both of us belong to?

(sure some gamers are cultural Marxists... and Marxist Marxists... and probably every political stripe in-between)


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> The woman who wrote that article is using rhetorical language suggestive if the Social Justice movement. This movement tries to control other peoples activity taking control over others media, c.f Gamergate .




Goal post shift (again).

Next?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ace said:


> Words don't kill, people kill.




True.

But words DO light the fuse that explode into violence.  There's a crime called incitement, you know.

But even beyond the criminal act of incitement, it is well understood that how we speak of others affects how we treat them.  The process of dehumanization starts with words, and ends in physical harm.  Once we start erecting verbal barriers between each other, we emotionally detach from seeing them as human, and that lets us treat them as less than human.  (Hence why we are told to try to rehumanize ourselves if ever being held hostage.)
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> The woman who wrote that article is using rhetorical language suggestive if the Social Justice movement. This movement tries to control other peoples activity taking control over others media, c.f Gamergate .




Sorry, not a goal post shift....you've been harping on this the whole time.

Ad hominem attack. If you don't have a defensible point, attack the person making the argument instead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mallus said:


> sure some gamers are cultural Marxists... and Marxist Marxists... and probably every political stripe in-between




That the hobby includes both a Wraethu RPG and the RaHoWa RPG proves this point perfectly.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Mallus said:


> It doesn't sound like you and I are part of the same monoculture (disclosure: I've been gaming for 30 years, and can spit Star Trek references with the best of the nerds). Aside from 'liking to pretend we're elves' what defines the culture both of us belong to?




There is no monoculture, and that's the problem. The people who like the fact that they can harassment women, PoC and other groups want everyone to think that their behavior is the norm for the so-called gaming culture. The truth is that there is no monoculture, just like there is no "one true way" to gaming. All of us have different interests, different backgrounds and different outlooks on what makes for a healthy society. But, if that lack of monoculture is acknowledged, then it blows a lot of their "defense" of bad behaviors out of the water.


----------



## Mallus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That the hobby includes both a Wraethu RPG and the RaHoWa RPG proves this point perfectly.



Thanks for reminding me I know what *both* of the things are, Danny! Thanks a lot. 

(why can I only forget what I'd like to remember?!)


----------



## Ace

Just because nerds were involved means nothing whatever in any case I'm not moving the goalposts, you are. 

Its not the same hobby. Pokemon is NOT D&D .Its not a role playing game . This you'll note is a D&D forum not a card forum .  The targeted areas was a card tournament 

You don't get to include cases that make your point because a couple of neck beards were involved, The cases don't fit. 

It is not the same hobby. In any case I don't play CCG's and am not responsible for that they do. The CCG guys at my FLGS are great, very nice helpful people, a very diverse group. 

Even if it was  related a single case does not make your point,

On top of that  this isn't apparently even related to harassment but to a killing spree. I'm seeing little connection between this and harassment at Cons.


----------



## Obryn

Ace said:


> Its not a community.  It was once, but given the cultural changes, is no longer.  Its become political and that is an end game. I won't help  beyond what the law requires,people whose politics I loathe and who clearly loathe me.



Wow.



Ace said:


> No one legally or practically owns the hobby and the  gaming hobby was  shared so no one lays claim to ownership but a reasonable claim that CCWG's have a moral claim to the hobby and ought to be given first say.
> 
> Its not that way and I am fine with that however.
> 
> Understand now?



I do understand, but I can't fathom a situation where this even remotely sounds like a good idea.


----------



## Obryn

Ace said:


> Just because nerds were involved means nothing whatever in any case I'm not moving the goalposts, you are.
> 
> Its not the same hobby. Pokemon is NOT D&D .Its not a role playing game . This you'll note is a D&D forum not a card forum .  The targeted areas was a card tournament
> 
> You don't get to include cases that make your point because a couple of neck beards were involved, The cases don't fit.
> 
> It is not the same hobby. In any case I don't play CCG's and am not responsible for that they do. The CCG guys at my FLGS are great, very nice helpful people, a very diverse group.
> 
> Even if it was  related a single case does not make your point,
> 
> On top of that  this isn't apparently even related to harassment but to a killing spree. I'm seeing little connection between this and harassment at Cons.



_And what's more, they are no true Scotsmen!_


----------



## Ace

I'm am aware of the myriad of theories and have even mentioned incitement. repeatedly , We have laws for that. If it comes up we can use them. That's plenty.

if someone can prove that cons are hotbeds  of bad conduct, I'll listen. So far I see rhetorical appeals and no real evidence.


----------



## Neonchameleon

GMforPowergamers said:


> Forget jokes for a moment... Of I'm walking my dog and see and old black man walking and I smile and not saying "howdy" is that any diffrent then if he was a beutful woman? Am I sexiest for saying hello to one when in the same situation I would say and do the same to the other?
> 
> I ask because I normally do to everyone BUT there is a feminist video claiming men are pigs and half the things they say are generic good mornings.




It ain't what you say it's the way that you say it. To use one example the meaning of "How you doing?" depends a lot on the stress - "How you doing?" may be a generic greeting but it's not at all the same as "How _you_ doing?" which is basically a cat call. It's as different from a polite version as "Helloooo Nurse!" is from a generic hello.

[video=youtube;H2yJ-VaMDYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2yJ-VaMDYs[/video] 

But that wasn't the point of the video if it's the one I think it is. The point of the video was that _she could not walk through town without getting interrupted every few minutes. _It doesn't matter if people are superficially polite - when I'm trying to think about something if you're the fifth person to interrupt me I'm going to get cranky even if you've interrupted me to tell me I'm about to step into an open manhole or that I've won the lottery. In a city, because there are so many people, interrupting someone you don't know and isn't making themself open for contact is inherently impolite whether or not you follow Debrett's.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> You don't get to include cases that make your point because a couple of neck beards were involved, The cases don't fit.




You keep using these words...


----------



## Ace

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That the hobby includes both a Wraethu RPG and the RaHoWa RPG proves this point perfectly.




Smiles. 

Ah more like a Wraethu  and a FATAL. 

Warethu is mechanically alright  and FATAL are at least sort of playable. RAHowa isn't even a complete game. 

And yes i've read all three.


----------



## Ace

You keep hammering away if you like. Its not going anywhere.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> Just because nerds were involved means nothing whatever in any case I'm not moving the goalposts, you are.




Sure. I only wrote the article here about tabletop gaming, and mentioned that periodically. But I'm moving the goal posts.


----------



## Ace

They weren't. They were Welsh. Fellows Celts but we Scotsman any nay responsible for tha' lot now are we?

In any case, it still doesn't prove the point. 

Millions of card players, one bad case does not make a crime, violence or harassment wave


----------



## dungeon crawler

dungeon crawler said:


> I know this stuff happens. I am a "White Christian Conservative" and a small group Pastor who ran D&D encounters for my FLGS until cancer and chemotherapy ended it. I did not and will not put up with ANYONE being harassed, bullied or mistreated in one of my games. I run games at conventions and the same rules apply there. Many people have told me  how much they appreciated the way they were treated at my games. Any harassment is wrong words don't just hurt sometimes they kill.




Let me explain my post a little further. In 1983 my best friend was harassed so much for being a geek he took his life. After years of constant beatings and being teased, lied about, excluded and generally misused the strain got to him. I am / was proud to call him my friend and fellow gamer. He did not deserve the treatment he got no one does. His final note said I was his one true friend because I never judged him but honestly cared so for me this subject may be a little personal. I am sorry if I hurt anyone. It is good that we are having this discussion.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> Millions of card players, one bad case does not make a crime, violence or harassment wave




https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...45c1fa-2971-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html


----------



## Ace

Christopher Helton said:


> Sure. I only wrote the article here about tabletop gaming, and mentioned that periodically. But I'm moving the goal posts.




I'm willing to assume we just have a difference of opinion here. You may feel differently and that's fine. I cannot be persuaded to you POV at all.  I don't care about CCG and don't consider it part of the hobby. what they do doesn't reflect bad on my hobby in any case.Even if they play D&D This event took place at a card tournament , not our problem any more than a random drug shooting is. I am not my nerd brothers keeper.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Ace said:


> I'm willing to assume we just have a difference of opinion here. You may feel differently and that's fine. I cannot be persuaded to you POV at all.  I don't care about CCG and don't consider it part of the hobby. what they do doesn't reflect bad on my hobby in any case.Even if they play D&D This event took place at a card tournament , not our problem any more than a random drug shooting is. I am not my nerd brothers keeper.




I don't care about CCGs, miniatures or boardgames either, however they have more in common than they have different, and they all have common origins, which is why (whether we care about them or not) they are all under the umbrella of tabletop gaming. Honestly, I don't expect you to change your mind, or care.


----------



## Ace

Christopher Helton said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...45c1fa-2971-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html




Its  about Magic the Gathering. As such I don't care, If there is a problem with that hobby, it not my hobby, not my concern at all. Cards are NOT the same hobby even if there is crossover in the player base, 

Just for fun, lets say card flippers were harassing people at cons?  

Would that not be up to the con to deal with it? I don't attend cons, I don't play cards why on Earth  would I care?


----------



## Ace

Christopher Helton said:


> I don't care about CCGs, miniatures or boardgames either, however they have more in common than they have different, and they all have common origins, which is why (whether we care about them or not) they are all under the umbrella of tabletop gaming. Honestly, I don't expect you to change your mind, or care.




Fair enough. that is a reasonable  answer.

Larger umbrellas cause larger harder to solve problems in my book. 

By keeping it small, its manageable. My game is good enough that the lady gamer who joined us called back to apologize that she could no longer make it because the game was great  She was in the military and just too busy . The Vietnamese guy that games with us occasionally also has fun and has said so, 

I've done my part.  That's all I need to concern myself with.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Neonchameleon said:


> It ain't what you say it's the way that you say it. To use one example the meaning of "How you doing?" depends a lot on the stress - "How you doing?" may be a generic greeting but it's not at all the same as "How _you_ doing?" which is basically a cat call. It's as different from a polite version as "Helloooo Nurse!" is from a generic hello.
> 
> [video=youtube;H2yJ-VaMDYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2yJ-VaMDYs[/video]
> 
> But that wasn't the point of the video if it's the one I think it is. The point of the video was that _she could not walk through town without getting interrupted every few minutes. _It doesn't matter if people are superficially polite - when I'm trying to think about something if you're the fifth person to interrupt me I'm going to get cranky even if you've interrupted me to tell me I'm about to step into an open manhole or that I've won the lottery. In a city, because there are so many people, interrupting someone you don't know and isn't making themself open for contact is inherently impolite whether or not you follow Debrett's.



I do not cat call I am not rude but somehow someone can take my polite hi as a insult be use that is how THEY take it....it drives me nuts be use no matte how hard I try I can't get my voice or manirism to not be offensiveeven when I am just trying to be nice



Edit now imagine 0 tolerance... A nice young woman gets hit on by 4 guys in 20 minutes... Then I make the mistake of politly saying "good morning" how ever as is always the case with me I say it in the wrong voice some how...she can call security and have me ejected as the last straw... What happens when I say " I only said good morning, I said it to like 10 people...what is wrong with good morning" just to be told there is no excuse the 0 tolerance any accusation is a enough to boot me the same as if some guy grabed her butt... Becuse that is what I am fighting against I want everyone safe including me


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Fergurg said:


> Yes, there ARE people on this thread who are advocating for that very thing.




First, no need to welcome me to the thread, I have been here for pages and pages.  And you must have further vision problems because there was a post not far above mine where someone was stating the right to free speech, even if not nice speech and I corrected them.

Second, there is no one advocating throwing people out for one joke.  The message is that it may not be a joke to everyone and that if the joke is actually inappropriate speech it may be considered to be harassment. Far too often when confronted the claim will be "I was only joking" and the warning is that it will not be an acceptable excuse if the con or games store person making the call thinks it is over the line and into harassment.

So your "corrections" have now been corrected.  The other points you made were the same non-speak and beating around the bush.  The ship has already sailed. Almost all cons have policies now.  Expect stricter and stricter enforcement.  It will be in most game stores soon as it is becoming increasingly obvious that like banning smoking in bars it is just better for business.  I expect every organized league for all games companies will have similar policies if they already do not.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Myrdin Potter said:


> First, no need to welcome me to the thread, I have been here for pages and pages.  And you must have further vision problems because there was a post not far above mine where someone was stating the right to free speech, even if not nice speech and I corrected them.
> 
> Second, there is no one advocating throwing people out for one joke.  The message is that it may not be a joke to everyone and that if the joke is actually inappropriate speech it may be considered to be harassment. Far too often when confronted the claim will be "I was only joking" and the warning is that it will not be an acceptable excuse if the con or games store person making the call thinks it is over the line and into harassment.
> 
> So your "corrections" have now been corrected.  The other points you made were the same non-speak and beating around the bush.  The ship has already sailed. Almost all cons have policies now.  Expect stricter and stricter enforcement.  It will be in most game stores soon as it is becoming increasingly obvious that like banning smoking in bars it is just better for business.  I expect every organized league for all games companies will have similar policies if they already do not.



As long as those policies come with human beings deciding on a case by case basis whee both offended and offender get to say what happened...great throw every real harraser out make everyone feel safe. Don't throw people out over accusations with no ability to explain, or appologies


----------



## Dannager

Ace said:


> Its not a community.  It was once, but given the cultural changes, is no longer.




See, here's the problem: You can't tell the difference between a community that no longer exists, and a community that simply doesn't want you as part of it.

The rest of us are part of a community - one that you pretend doesn't exist because the alternative is uncomfortable.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

GMforPowergamers said:


> As long as those policies come with human beings deciding on a case by case basis whee both offended and offender get to say what happened...great throw every real harraser out make everyone feel safe. Don't throw people out over accusations with no ability to explain, or appologies




You keep worrying about hypotheticals and reality is that an accusation will need to be credible.  However, do not expect that an apology will do if you really did step out of line.  The person making the call will be a person and they probably will do the best they can to sort out what happened.  But if a reasonable person would be offended by your actions regardless of intent, then expect some reaction.

There are some people that suffer from Tourette's syndrome and some in the austism spectrum that really do have a medical condition that can be cited as a valid reason, but there are most others who are just thoughtless and cruel.  

I have had had plenty of people with even poorer social skills than me in my gaming groups over the 35+ years that I have gamed and some other geeky hobbies like the SCA.  In general we have been able to make it work.  

In in my younger and single days, including GF in groups could get annoying as break-ups and drama were too common in the late teens (my HS days were in an all boys Catholic school so never was an issue).  In a private house and private game you can make whatever rule you want.  In a convention or game store you need to behave better as you are in public.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> Attempting to solve a problem that will never be solved isn't an issue.  It's just doing the best you can.  Do you have a different, logical, reason as to why treating men and women the same wouldn't help lead to the same opportunities and experiences for both genders?




Yes, as I've said previously, because where there is an existing situation of inequality treating people equally now, is not the best that can be done. The best that can be done is to redress existing inequality first. 

If one person is hungry and another person is well-fed, you give more food to the hungry person.



Taneras said:


> Lehrbuch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, we have to treat some men as if they are barely socialised idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Some men", which men?  The ones behaving badly?  So the criteria is behavior, not gender, unless you're suggesting we treat all men like that....
Click to expand...



Absolutely, we are talking about the problems of inappropriate behaviour. It doesn't matter what characterises the inappropriate behaviour, whether it is gender / ethnicity / whatever the problem is the behaviour of some people.

Of course, the specific context is inappropriate behaviour of some men towards women, in the gaming community. So, yes, in this case there are some men whom we must treat like socially-retarded idiots.



Taneras said:


> So all women need are "whatever reason", [for a woman only table] but you don't grant that same allowance for males, simply because of whats between their legs...  That's sexist by the dictionary definition.




It's not because of sexism, it is because men are the majority, in the gaming community. It is inappropriate to set up circumstances whereby the majority can exclude the minority.

The reverse of course applies in the right circumstances. I go to a Pilates mat class. The Pilates instructor runs mat classes of various levels that are open to both men and women. However, she also runs a men-only mat class. This is because men are the definite minority, and so mostly do not seem to feel comfortable with an open class. I guess the men feel vulnerable about being too fat and inflexible compared to the women. Whatever the reason, having a men's only class, has boosted men's attendance, with some joining some open classes too. On the other hand, having a women's only class is neither needed nor appropriate, as women are the majority, and most of the open classes are attended by women only by anyway.



Taneras said:


> Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, your attempts to balance out past inequalities by reversing said inequalities today is pretty damn sick.




Well, I'm happy to say that you completely misunderstand. Have another think about it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Myrdin Potter said:


> You keep worrying about hypotheticals and reality is that an accusation will need to be credible.  However, do not expect that an apology will do if you really did step out of line.  The person making the call will be a person and they probably will do the best they can to sort out what happened.  But if a reasonable person would be offended by your actions regardless of intent, then expect some reaction.
> 
> There are some people that suffer from Tourette's syndrome and some in the austism spectrum that really do have a medical condition that can be cited as a valid reason, but there are most others who are just thoughtless and cruel.
> 
> .



What criteria do you use to tell the difference? This is probably way beyond this thread but in my case I had competing diagnosis. When I was a kid It was thought I was autstic but then the psychologist that said that died and the next 3 all said it was justndepresion and I needed to go make fri3new a and one that my mom tried to sue told us I would get over it after I had my first girlfriend...

And again if I say hi it could be sexiest if I say it the wrong way or if too many others have said hi...at least according to the thread so far.

It sucks but my first gen com I just say silent most games be use I was scared to talk...I still do that at parties or work but gaming has become the place I found my voice. I would hate to loose that because magicly the same words I use as someone else could get me kicked out but not then...


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMforPowergamers said:


> As long as those policies come with human beings deciding on a case by case basis whee both offended and offender get to say what happened...great throw every real harraser out make everyone feel safe. Don't throw people out over accusations with no ability to explain, or appologies




In the real world, you have to choose which effect you want: the hypothetical and distant possibility of someone being unjustly chucked out OR an environment where people get away with harassment.

I know which one I'd want to attend, which one I'd attend with my wife, and which one I'd want my daughter to attend, and they're all the same one. 

For the record, it's the one that prevents things that *actually happen*, even if that means that hypothetically someone might suffer an injustice at some point.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I'm A Banana said:


> In the real world, you have to choose which effect you want: the hypothetical and distant possibility of someone being unjustly chucked out OR an environment where people get away with harassment.
> 
> I know which one I'd want to attend, which one I'd attend with my wife, and which one I'd want my daughter to attend, and they're all the same one.
> 
> For the record, it's the one that prevents things that *actually happen*, even if that means that hypothetically someone might suffer an injustice at some point.




So you think that the only way for you and your family to be able to safely go to gen com is if me and mine can't? 

That sounds crazy why can't we make it safe for all gamers? If you really be live we can't what then gives your family presadiant over mine?


----------



## Taneras

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, those are both based in sociopolitical issues much larger than what we can speak about here - but let's just say I can see why those statements can be problematic.




First the materials I've seen don't label those statements, and other seemingly innocent statements, as possibly problematic.  They unequivocally are.

Example: https://issuu.com/thecollegefix/docs/nfsracialmicroaggressions_table

Are they only problematic when you inject those quotes into a larger conversation filled with ill will or can those quotes on their own and in a vacuum be seen as "problematic"?  If its the former I'd argue that almost all comments could fit the bill.  If it's the latter I'd love to see those dots connected.



Umbran said:


> Yes, but that's a two edged sword.  It is acting like an adult to disregard some level of offensiveness.  It is also acting like an adult to help those less fortunate than yourself, and to be thoughtful of others.




And by saying that America is a melting pot I'm necessarily saying that I'm unwilling to help others less fortunate than myself and won't be thoughtful of others?



Umbran said:


> Sometimes, sure.  But it is also being hijacked by _hypo_sensitivity.  All tools can be misused.




Of the two, which is gaining traction?  Which way is the needle moving?  I'm not talking about what swarms of internet trolls are doing, I'm talking about policies being put in place at universities, events, etc.  I see it leaning more and more towards the hypersensitivity side of the spectrum and I'm just trying to pump the brakes, not reverse course.


----------



## Umbran

Ace said:


> if someone can prove that cons are hotbeds  of bad conduct, I'll listen. So far I see rhetorical appeals and no real evidence.




Okay, so you don't accept card players as analogous.  How about ComicCon?  Are you going to contend that RPG players are somehow significantly different from the attendees of a ComicCon?  Really relevant elements in bold...

_"As a comics editor, writer, and fan myself, I got interested in how often people at conventions experience harassment. So earlier this year I conducted a survey on sexual harassment in comics, receiving 3,600 responses from people that varied from fans to professionals. The survey was distributed and conducted online, with people sharing it via Twitter, Facebook, and especially Tumblr and self-reporting all information. Of the people taking the survey, 55 percent of respondents were female, 39 percent were male, and six percent were non-binary.

Out of all respondents, 59 percent said they felt sexual harassment was a problem in comics and 25 percent said they had been sexually harassed in the industry. The harassment varied: while in the workplace or at work events, respondents were more likely to suffer disparaging comments about their gender, sexual orientation, or race. *At conventions, respondents were more likely to be photographed against their wishes. Thirteen percent reported having unwanted comments of a sexual nature made about them at conventions—and eight percent of people of all genders reported they had been groped, assaulted, or raped at a comic convention.*

To put these percentages into perspective, if 13 percent of San Diego Comic-Con attendees have unwanted comments of a sexual nature made about them this week, that would be around 17,000 people. And if eight percent of SDCC attendees are groped, assaulted, or raped, that’s over 10,000 attendees suffering harassment."_

https://bitchmedia.org/post/how-big...-big-survey-sdcc-emerald-city-cosplay-consent

Admittedly, this is informal.  I would normally ask for far more rigor, but conventions (for legal, insurance, and PR reasons) do not openly report their statistics on such matters, so informal is what we get until someone wants to throw a lot of money at it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> Okay, so you don't accept card players as analogous.  How about ComicCon?  Are you going to contend that RPG players are somehow significantly different from the attendees of a ComicCon?  Really relevant elements in bold...
> 
> _"As a comics editor, writer, and fan myself, I got interested in how often people at conventions experience harassment. So earlier this year I conducted a survey on sexual harassment in comics, receiving 3,600 responses from people that varied from fans to professionals. The survey was distributed and conducted online, with people sharing it via Twitter, Facebook, and especially Tumblr and self-reporting all information. Of the people taking the survey, 55 percent of respondents were female, 39 percent were male, and six percent were non-binary.
> 
> Out of all respondents, 59 percent said they felt sexual harassment was a problem in comics and 25 percent said they had been sexually harassed in the industry. The harassment varied: while in the workplace or at work events, respondents were more likely to suffer disparaging comments about their gender, sexual orientation, or race. *At conventions, respondents were more likely to be photographed against their wishes. Thirteen percent reported having unwanted comments of a sexual nature made about them at conventions—and eight percent of people of all genders reported they had been groped, assaulted, or raped at a comic convention.*
> 
> To put these percentages into perspective, if 13 percent of San Diego Comic-Con attendees have unwanted comments of a sexual nature made about them this week, that would be around 17,000 people. And if eight percent of SDCC attendees are groped, assaulted, or raped, that’s over 10,000 attendees suffering harassment."_
> 
> https://bitchmedia.org/post/how-big...-big-survey-sdcc-emerald-city-cosplay-consent
> 
> Admittedly, this is informal.  I would normally ask for far more rigor, but conventions (for legal, insurance, and PR reasons) do not openly report their statistics on such matters, so informal is what we get until someone wants to throw a lot of money at it.



Since I trust Umbria I will assume his numbers are true. Why don't we make a huge stink and push for more police action...I mean if we can get the rapes alone down to almost not happening that alone would be a huge victory and if cops crack down on this evil vile crime it would make us all safer...here in the states it's an election year why talk about pay or glass dealings when physical assaults are so high....


----------



## Rygar

I'm A Banana said:


> In the real world, you have to choose which effect you want: the hypothetical and distant possibility of someone being unjustly chucked out OR an environment where people get away with harassment.
> 
> I know which one I'd want to attend, which one I'd attend with my wife, and which one I'd want my daughter to attend, and they're all the same one.
> 
> For the record, it's the one that prevents things that *actually happen*, even if that means that hypothetically someone might suffer an injustice at some point.




I think there's a facet missing from this discussion.  That facet is that _*none*_ of this is hypothetical.  It's already happened.

The best example is that of the Honey Badgers,  who were booted for answering a question with the presenter's approval and did so politely.  But the social justice warriors deemed her harassing because she had an opposing viewpoint.

http://www.reaxxion.com/8156/honey-badgers-to-sue-calgary-expo-over-being-banned-by-anti-gamergate

Then there's the Denver Comic-con that defined shirts displaying Vivian James is "Harassment",  you don't even have to say anything,  if the image displeases the social justice warrior it is harassment. (Referenced in above link)

Then there's the story about the public shaming of the Magic the Gathering player,  and his subsequent eviction for the heinous crime of wearing a T-Shirt that said marriage is between a man and woman.  That one was reported here.

So given that we've seen clear evidence that harassment policies are being used to eject people simply for not adhering to the standards of the social justice warriors I think it is critical that clear  impartial evidence is demonstrated that there actually is a problem other than "I don't want people who don't agree with me to be here".  If we can obtain evidence that there is in fact an issue that originates from somewhere other than SJW's then I'm completely in support of what's being proposed.

If we cannot,  then we can essentially kiss the hobby goodbye.  Because the policy obviously will be used to eject those guilty of wrong-think,  causing people to abandon the hobby for something with much less drama,  and ultimately reduce the revenue to a point where it's no longer worth company's time to produce RPG's.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Why don't we again start with 8% of attendees are physically groped or rapes...we can all agree that number needs to become a decimal point at most right... Words are not rape and grope...kicking someone out for a short is wrong but rapeing people is 100x worse...


----------



## Umbran

Taneras said:


> Are they only problematic when you inject those quotes into a larger conversation filled with ill will or can those quotes on their own and in a vacuum be seen as "problematic"?




There is no way to have those statements not part of a larger context.  However, as I've already said, that context is in larger socio-politics that aren't appropriate for these boards.  I will attempt to try to address a bit here without being specific in modern politics.  Folks can tell me how good a job I do at getting the idea across without reference to raise ire.



> And by saying that America is a melting pot I'm necessarily saying that I'm unwilling to help others less fortunate than myself and won't be thoughtful of others?




It fails on the "thoughtful" part.  Specifically, the "melting pot" idea works great... if you are part of the dominant culture.  To demonstrate the concept, we will consider a real melting pot, with crayons.

Take 19 blue crayons, and heat them up until the melt. They are happily blue.  Add one red crayon.  You will end up with a mixture that is mostly blue, maybe tinged a bit purplish, right?

So, for Blue, the melting pot means a small change, maybe the addition of a little depth or "flavor".  Quite possibly this is an improvement, but if not, it isn't a big change.  For Blue, the melting pot is not drastic.  For the Red, however, it means almost total loss of identity, almost all Redness subsumed in a mass of Blue as a mere tinge - the minority culture in a melting pot becomes a footnote.  

Thus, reference to the Melting Pot as a good thing is a bit thoughtless, as it is painting the loss of identity of the minority as a good thing.


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMforPowergamers said:


> So you think that the only way for you and your family to be able to safely go to gen com is if me and mine can't?
> 
> That sounds crazy why can't we make it safe for all gamers? If you really be live we can't what then gives your family presadiant over mine?




The risk of getting thrown out of a con isn't a risk to anyone's "safety." At most, it's a risk to your weekend plans - no one's going to choke you or hit you or bruise you or anything.

The risk of getting harassed at a con certainly IS a risk to EVERYONE's safety - the risk of sexual assault *makes something unsafe* (and not just for the victims!).

Only one is a rational fear born out of what happens in the real world. The other is so rare as to be remarkable when it happens.

So to start with, these risks are not equivalent risks in terms of likelihood or in terms of consequence. If you don't take out molasses flood insurance on your house in the US, you shouldn't be worried about being tossed out of a con for an unfounded accusation - molasses floods happen more often. If you've ever broken the speed limit in a car, you're already taking a bigger safety risk than going to a con with a zero tolerance policy. 

With that out of the way, you ask if we can't have an environment where nobody gets tossed out unfairly AND nobody gets harassed. The answer is no. That's not the world we actually live in (and if it is someday, maybe the topic will be worth revisiting!). Heck, the reason we HAVE zero-tolerance policies is because that plan *failed*. 

You're free to judge that you'd rather avoid any possible con-chucking injustice, but to bring it to a personal level, the price you would pay is that someone you care about could be the victim of sexual assault more easily in that scenario than in a zero-tolerance scenario.

My calculation is to imagine the bad scenarios: I imagine how much it would suck for me personally to be chucked out of a con on the word of some angry congoblin's accusation (it would suck a lot! I would be embarassed, pissed, out a bunch of money, my weekend ruined, I would feel frustrated and unhappy). I weigh the likelihood of that outcome (it doesn't seem very likely based on the evidence so far).

I then imagine how much it would suck for me personally to have someone I care about groped or raped or even catcalled or otherwise sexually accosted at a con (that would suck SO MUCH MORE). I weigh the likelihood of that outcome (it seems entirely possible based on the evidence so far). 

I then go with the thing that would suck less.

Getting chucked out of a con would be a price I'd gladly pay to reduce the chances of my wife's breasts being grabbed when she was alone in an elevator with some clever rapist.


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> Yes, as I've said previously, because where there is an existing situation of inequality treating people equally now, is not the best that can be done. The best that can be done is to redress existing inequality first.




No, you previously said...



			
				Lehrbuch said:
			
		

> Treating two groups of people equally within a social system which has a past that was unequal, and / or is a part of a larger social system with a past (and present) that is unequal, just leads to perpetuating the existing inequality.




You were talking about *PAST* inequalities as if that needs to factor into what we need to do today to make things equal.  With regards to equality there's only one thing we need to do, treat everyone the same.

Now you're only mentioning *EXISTING* inequality.  Existing inequality is fixed by stop treating people differently.  When everyone is treated the same then there's no more inequality.  But you already threw in a mention of past inequalities preventing treating people equal today as reaching equality - and I'm wondering why you think that.

Can you explain your previous statement?  Why do you think past inequalities should factor into creating equality now?  And how do they factor in?  Take my example of black sufferage.  How should America have handled that situation?  You're claiming that making things equal now doesn't matter because of past inequalities, so clearly we needed to do more than just give blacks the right to vote.  What more, beyond giving blacks the right to vote, can we do to make up for the decades of not letting them vote?



Lehrbuch said:


> If one person is hungry and another person is well-fed, you give more food to the hungry person.




The issue here is we have enough for both people to have enough to eat a full meal.  We have enough to feed them indefinitely.  We aren't in short supply of equality.



Lehrbuch said:


> Absolutely, we are talking about the problems of inappropriate behaviour. It doesn't matter what characterises the inappropriate behaviour, whether it is gender / ethnicity / whatever the problem is the behaviour of some people.
> 
> Of course, the specific context is inappropriate behaviour of some men towards women, in the gaming community. So, yes, in this case there are some men whom we must treat like socially-retarded idiots.




If the focus is on behavior alone I don't see how you're turning this into a gender issue.  What do the fact that some men are "socially-retarded idiots" have to do with disallowing male only tables?



Lehrbuch said:


> It's not because of sexism, it is because men are the majority, in the gaming community. It is inappropriate to set up circumstances whereby the majority can exclude the minority.




Rubbish, its explicitly about gender.  If this really was about not allowing the majority to exclude the minority, and we're not looking at race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. then you'd also be against adult only tables at a convention were most people are adults.  After all, its *only* about preventing the majority (adults) from excluding the minority (children and teens).



Lehrbuch said:


> Well, I'm happy to say that you completely misunderstand. Have another think about it.




An explanation as to how I misunderstood would have went a long way.


----------



## ehren37

Rygar said:


> I think there's a facet missing from this discussion.  That facet is that _*none*_ of this is hypothetical.  It's already happened.
> 
> The best example is that of the Honey Badgers,  who were booted for answering a question with the presenter's approval and did so politely.  But the social justice warriors deemed her harassing because she had an opposing viewpoint.
> 
> http://www.reaxxion.com/8156/honey-badgers-to-sue-calgary-expo-over-being-banned-by-anti-gamergate
> 
> Then there's the Denver Comic-con that defined shirts displaying Vivian James is "Harassment",  you don't even have to say anything,  if the image displeases the social justice warrior it is harassment. (Referenced in above link)
> 
> Then there's the story about the public shaming of the Magic the Gathering player,  and his subsequent eviction for the heinous crime of wearing a T-Shirt that said marriage is between a man and woman.  That one was reported here.
> 
> So given that we've seen clear evidence that harassment policies are being used to eject people simply for not adhering to the standards of the social justice warriors I think it is critical that clear  impartial evidence is demonstrated that there actually is a problem other than "I don't want people who don't agree with me to be here".  If we can obtain evidence that there is in fact an issue that originates from somewhere other than SJW's then I'm completely in support of what's being proposed.
> 
> If we cannot,  then we can essentially kiss the hobby goodbye.  Because the policy obviously will be used to eject those guilty of wrong-think,  causing people to abandon the hobby for something with much less drama,  and ultimately reduce the revenue to a point where it's no longer worth company's time to produce RPG's.




The hobby would be so better off if any piles of human excrement tied to Gamergate/Return of Kings were made to feel so unwelcome they left.


----------



## Dannager

Rygar said:


> If we can obtain evidence that there is in fact an issue that originates from somewhere other than SJW's then I'm completely in support of what's being proposed.





Here's the thing, Rygar - _literally no one cares what you do or don't believe._ This is happening whether you chip in or not. We don't require your support. At all. We're _asking_ for it, because it would make this easier for everyone involved.

You've been shown the evidence - more than enough of it for any reasonable person. You've rejected it, _because that's the sort of person you are._ You will continue moving goal posts, regardless of the quality of evidence shown to you, because you don't care about what's actually happening, you aren't interested in improving things, and you're frustrated that the community overwhelmingly disagrees with you and is becoming increasingly hostile to your persistent intolerance.




> If we cannot,  then we can essentially kiss the hobby goodbye.  Because the policy obviously will be used to eject those guilty of wrong-think,  causing people to abandon the hobby for something with much less drama,  and ultimately reduce the revenue to a point where it's no longer worth company's time to produce RPG's.




What world do you live in where these policies are causing _fewer_ people to participate in the hobby? How does that delusion embed itself so deeply? Who do you think has more social pull, here? The women and minorities that a more welcoming environment would bring in, or the malicious, socially-crippled balls of impotent rage who think it's acceptable to harass women at gaming conventions?


----------



## Dannager

ehren37 said:


> The hobby would be so better off if any piles of human excrement tied to Gamergate/Return of Kings were made to feel so unwelcome they left.




Good lord, yes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I'm A Banana said:


> The risk of getting thrown out of a con isn't a risk to anyone's "safety." At most, it's a risk to your weekend plans - no one's going to choke you or hit you or bruise you or anything.
> 
> The risk of getting harassed at a con certainly IS a risk to EVERYONE's safety - the risk of sexual assault *makes something unsafe* (and not just for the victims!).
> 
> Only one of these things has a history of ever occurring. Only one is a rational fear born out of what happens in the real world.
> 
> So to start with, these risks are not equivalent risks in terms of likelihood or in terms of consequence. If you don't take out molasses flood insurance on your house in the US, you shouldn't be worried about being tossed out of a con for an unfounded accusation - molasses floods happen more often. If you've ever broken the speed limit in a car, you're already taking a bigger safety risk than going to a con with a zero tolerance policy.
> 
> With that out of the way, you ask if we can't have an environment where nobody gets tossed out unfairly AND nobody gets harassed. The answer is no. That's not the world we actually live in (and if it is someday, maybe the topic will be worth revisiting!). Heck, the reason we HAVE zero-tolerance policies is because that plan *failed*.
> 
> You're free to judge that you'd rather avoid any possible con-chucking injustice, but to bring it to a personal level, the price you would pay is that someone you care about could be the victim of sexual assault more easily in that scenario than in a zero-tolerance scenario.
> 
> My calculation is to imagine the bad scenarios: I imagine how much it would suck for me personally to be chucked out of a con on the word of some angry congoblin's accusation (it would suck a lot! I would be embarassed, pissed, out a bunch of money, my weekend ruined, I would feel frustrated and unhappy). I weigh the likelihood of that outcome (it doesn't seem very likely based on the evidence so far).
> 
> I then imagine how much it would suck for me personally to have someone I care about groped or raped or even catcalled or otherwise sexually accosted at a con (that would suck SO MUCH MORE). I weigh the likelihood of that outcome (it seems entirely possible based on the evidence so far).
> 
> I then go with the thing that would suck less.
> 
> Getting chucked out of a con would be a price I'd gladly pay to reduce the chances of my wife's breasts being grabbed when she was alone in an elevator with some clever rapist.




You are getting me made now...I have not advocated anything but 0 tolernnece for physical violence of any kind...it is words we disagree on. And a post or two above you are actually examples of being thrown out wrongly and you ignore them.

Physical assult sex or otherwise is a crime and should not be allowed.

Saying somthjgn that you do not mean to offend but does isn't even on the same scale. There is no reason a picture of some guy I never heard of on someone's shirt needs to be treated like grabing your wife so stop pretending argueing for one is swaying the other is aok


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> Since I trust Umbria I will assume his numbers are true.




I site the source, and note that it is informal.  You don't have to trust me, you may read it and give it what weight you find appropriate.



> Why don't we make a huge stink and push for more police action...




As has been mentioned several times in these threads - such incidents are *extremely* difficult to prosecute.  "Call the cops," does not work unless you have evidence beyond report by an individual.  If he's not caught on camera, or doesn't leave behind bodily fluids, you probably can't successfully put the cops on such a person.  And never mind the fact that the convention attendee victim is apt to be at home across the country in a couple of days, and not in a good position to support a case that'll come to trial probably months later.

This is why it becomes the realm of cultural pressure, and why the convention has to have policies that have lower standards of proof than a court.  The court is simply not designed to handle this problem well, so we must ind other solutions.


----------



## Taneras

ehren37 said:


> The hobby would be so better off if any piles of human excrement tied to Gamergate/Return of Kings were made to feel so unwelcome they left.




I'd make a distinction there, there were enough honest people who didn't resort to harassment within Gamergate to garner an exception.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ehren37 said:


> The hobby would be so better off if any piles of human excrement tied to Gamergate/Return of Kings were made to feel so unwelcome they left.




Why would any care about the third LotR movie or the stupid video game thing and why would we not want all gamers feeling welcome


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> I site the source, and note that it is informal.  You don't have to trust me, you may read it and give it what weight you find appropriate.
> 
> 9
> 
> As has been mentioned several times in these threads - such incidents are *extremely* difficult to prosecute.  "Call the cops," does not work unless you have evidence beyond report by an individual.  If he's not caught on camera, or doesn't leave behind bodily fluids, you probably can't successfully put the cops on such a person.  And never mind the fact that the convention attendee victim is apt to be at home across the country in a couple of days, and not in a good position to support a case that'll come to trial probably months later.
> 
> This is why it becomes the realm of cultural pressure, and why the convention has to have policies that have lower standards of proof than a court.  The court is simply not designed to handle this problem well, so we must ind other solutions.



Its the cops job to find out who did it they can't all be as inept as my local ones...


----------



## Dannager

GMforPowergamers said:


> Why would any care about the third LotR movie or the stupid video game thing and why would we not want all gamers feeling welcome




Because some people shouldn't be made welcome, out of concern for the larger community.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> I'd make a distinction there, there were enough honest people who didn't resort to harassment within Gamergate to garner an exception.




Are you guys speaking a diffrent language I thought gg was about someo e buying reviews for their game? WhT are you talking about


----------



## Dannager

GMforPowergamers said:


> Its the cops job to find out who did it they can't all be as inept as my local ones...




It's the job of law enforcement to make determinations of likely criminal wrongdoing, not to ensure that a given environment remains comfortable and welcoming. A convention has standards for conduct that go far beyond merely what is expected of a person under the law.


----------



## Dannager

GMforPowergamers said:


> Are you guys speaking a diffrent language I thought gg was about someo e buying reviews for their game? WhT are you talking about




Hahahaha

Literally, "It's about ethics in games journalism," in this thread, said with a straight face.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dannager said:


> Because some people shouldn't be made welcome, out of concern for the larger community.




Violent people shouldn't and law breakers but why people of diffrent thoughts?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dannager said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> Literally, "It's about ethics in games journalism," in this thread, said with a straight face.




Why is that funny? I don't do video games except the Wii with me nephew and niece so I only know from the side I wasn't jokeing


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> Why don't we again start with 8% of attendees are physically groped or rapes...we can all agree that number needs to become a decimal point at most right... Words are not rape and grope...kicking someone out for a short is wrong but rapeing people is 100x worse...




Words are still hurtful and disrespectful, and there should be an expectation of courtesy in a public space..


----------



## Dannager

GMforPowergamers said:


> Violent people shouldn't and law breakers but why people of diffrent thoughts?




If it was merely a question of "different thoughts", it wouldn't be an issue because no one would know.

The problem is that when you say "different thoughts", you really mean "different words", or more accurately, "abusive, harassing, or disturbing words."


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMforPowergamers said:


> You are getting me made now...I have not advocated anything but 0 tolernnece for physical violence of any kind...it is words we disagree on. And a post or two above you are actually examples of being thrown out wrongly and you ignore them.




What's the other side of the story? How do I know they're not making it up? Sounds like a bunch of hearsay to me. They probably just want attention. 



> Physical assult sex or otherwise is a crime and should not be allowed.
> 
> Saying somthjgn that you do not mean to offend but does isn't even on the same scale. There is no reason a picture of some guy I never heard of on someone's shirt needs to be treated like grabing your wife so stop pretending argueing for one is swaying the other is aok



Folks will sometimes get unjustly tossed out of cons. It sucks. It sucks less than having your daughter being sexually assaulted on her way to the hotel room at night.

Because we have to deal with the real world and flawed people, we have to imagine both things happening, and then decide what we're willing to give up to get the world we want.

Do we want a world where rapists get to walk around cons because there were no witnesses?

Or do we want a world where people get chucked out of cons for wearing inappropriate T-shirts? 

Most people seem to think the latter thing is not as bad as the former thing. If you agree, then there's no conflict: we can both acknowledge that what happened to the guy in the T-shirt or the folks in the panel or whatever _sucks_, but it sucks less than the alternative.


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:


> Are you guys speaking a diffrent language I thought gg was about someo e buying reviews for their game? WhT are you talking about




Not just me, pretty much everyone.  Gamergate was filled with people caring about journalistic integrity and people who only wanted to harass others.

Unfortunately, like and label, anyone can claim to be apart of it.  There was no membership/registration/background check involved.  The honest people did their best to self report and I think did a pretty good job on twitter keeping things clean a few months into the whole event.

If you are aware of GamerGate but not aware of the harassment I'm not sure what to say lol.  That was *THE* topic of discussion in any gaming circle discussing Gamergate.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ehren37 said:


> Words are still hurtful and disrespectful, and there should be an expectation of courtesy in a public space..




Yes they can and the adult thing to do when you offend someone is appologize Anne try not to do it again...not be pumped withrapests Nd gropers


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> Literally, "It's about ethics in games journalism," in this thread, said with a straight face.




Because out of 100,000+ people there wasn't anyone who cared about ethics.  They just spent hours and hours on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. decrying the harassment and trying to make progress with game journals (and did get changes to policies made in many instances) as a cover so they could send mean stuff.

You're just as bad as the people claiming no harassment at cons is occurring.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I'm A Banana said:


> What's the other side of the story? How do I know they're not making it up? Sounds like a bunch of hearsay to me. They probably just want attention.
> 
> 
> Folks will sometimes get unjustly tossed out of cons. It sucks. It sucks less than having your daughter being sexually assaulted on her way to the hotel room at night.
> 
> Because we have to deal with the real world and flawed people, we have to imagine both things happening, and then decide what we're willing to give up to get the world we want.
> 
> Do we want a world where rapists get to walk around cons because there were no witnesses?
> 
> Or do we want a world where people get chucked out of cons for wearing inappropriate T-shirts?
> 
> Most people seem to think the latter thing is not as bad as the former thing. If you agree, then there's no conflict: we can both acknowledge that what happened to the guy in the T-shirt or the folks in the panel or whatever _sucks_, but it sucks less than the alternative.




What does one have to do with the other? Why can't we say and wear what we want but ALSO not let rape or any physical assault happen...what if the rapes says the right words...then it's ok for your daughter to get raped since he didn't say something wrong first?


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> Because out of 100,000+ people there wasn't anyone who cared about ethics.




I'm sure some of them cared about ethics. That doesn't mean that's what the "movement" was about, though. And the ones who _did_ care about ethics but stuck around anyway have a lot to answer for.

And yes, Taneras, me laughing at Gamergate for its pretense about games journalism is _totally interchangeable_ with harassment denialism.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> Not just me, pretty much everyone.  Gamergate was filled with people caring about journalistic integrity and people who only wanted to harass others.
> 
> Unfortunately, like and label, anyone can claim to be apart of it.  There was no membership/registration/background check involved.  The honest people did their best to self report and I think did a pretty good job on twitter keeping things clean a few months into the whole event.
> 
> If you are aware of GamerGate but not aware of the harassment I'm not sure what to say lol.  That was *THE* topic of discussion in any gaming circle discussing Gamergate.




My knowledge of gamer gate... Anita sarkisian was on one side and got rich. Sargon of a pair was part of it andeft (i don't know if he and her were same side or not) I know it mAde me nuts Twitter for a few months and it started over someone buying a review...all that I got pretty much from angry DM and my 9 year old nephew


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> You were talking about *PAST* inequalities as if that needs to factor into what we need to do today to make things equal.  With regards to equality there's only one thing we need to do, treat everyone the same.
> 
> Now you're only mentioning *EXISTING* inequality...




The past is why there are existing inequalities.



Taneras said:


> If the focus is on behavior alone I don't see how you're turning this into a gender issue.  What do the fact that some men are "socially-retarded idiots" have to do with disallowing male only tables?




Fundamentally, because "male only" tables are socially-retarded idiocy, in the context of the gaming community. Especially if the main/only argument for having a "male only" table is "because it is reasonable to have women only tables and Men Must Be Equal".



Taneras said:


> If this really was about not allowing the majority to exclude the minority...Then you'd also be against adult only tables at a convention were most people are adults.  After all, its *only* about preventing the majority (adults) from excluding the minority (children and teens).




The world is more complicated and nuanced than you imagine.

Having "adult only" tables isn't _only_ about excluding a minority. The main point of "adult only" (and "children") tables is that adults and children and teens have different interests, have different expectations about what should occur in a game, different expectations about game pacing, different capabilities to handle game mechanics and role-play, different comprehension capabilities. We all know this. The point of "adult-only" tables is that adults and children are _not_ equal. 

That argument doesn't apply when thinking about gender.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> I'm sure some of them cared about ethics. That doesn't mean that's what the "movement" was about, though. And the ones who _did_ care about ethics but stuck around anyway have a lot to answer for.




What measurement did you use to determine what the movement was about?  On YouTube I saw dozens of videos by numerous people specifically focused on ethics and only mentioned harassment to preach against and shame those who were using it.  Their comments section was monitored well, and they were full of discussions about how to create fair policies and distance themselves from the harassers.

Also what does it matter that they "stuck around" with that hashtag?  Had they moved to a different one, guess what the harassers would have done...  Followed.


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yes they can and the adult thing to do when you offend someone is appologize Anne try not to do it again...not be pumped withrapests Nd gropers




At some point, apologies dont cut it though, and someone needs to mind their own mouth. Free Speech is not the same as Consequence-Free Speech. And you arent being lumped in with gropers or rapists, as no one is going to be potentially arresting you for bad jokes even if they were so offensive that it resulted in you being booted.


----------



## Dannager

Taneras said:


> What measurement did you use to determine what the movement was about?  On YouTube I saw dozens of videos by numerous people specifically focused on ethics and only mentioned harassment to preach against and shame those who were using it.  Their comments section was monitored well, and they were full of discussions about how to create fair policies and distance themselves from the harassers.
> 
> Also what does it matter that they "stuck around" with that hashtag?  Had they moved to a different one, guess what the harassers would have done...  Followed.




Yeah, no. We've been finished with this particular social embarrassment for months, now. The discussion around Gamergate is over, and its legacy is not what you want it to be. Time to move on.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> Because out of 100,000+ people there wasn't anyone who cared about ethics.  They just spent hours and hours on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. decrying the harassment and trying to make progress with game journals (and did get changes to policies made in many instances) as a cover so they could send mean stuff.
> 
> You're just as bad as the people claiming no harassment at cons is occurring.



It's just such a weird and bizarre coincidence that their favorite (usually female) targets also received the most vicious harassment, isn't it? Crazy world we live in, all these coincidences. 

You know what might help? An open conversation about what they can do to stop the harassm- oh never mind. That's what you guys have problems with over here! Just another weird coincidence, though, I'm sure.


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMforPowergamers said:


> What does one have to do with the other?



If you have a con policy of "accusation is essentially expulsion," you reduce the risk of sexual assault, and you also apparently get some stuff like [MENTION=6756765]Rygar[/MENTION] pointed out (assuming, as I generally do, that those people aren't just lying to get attention and push an agenda).



> Why can't we say and wear what we want but ALSO not let rape or any physical assault happen...what if the rapes says the right words...then it's ok for your daughter to get raped since he didn't say something wrong first?



Because the world's not a perfect place. Innocent people get hurt. Sometimes, we can choose which innocent people and how hurt, but until people stop being awful, innocent people will always get hurt.


----------



## Lehrbuch

GMforPowergamers said:


> What criteria do you use to tell the difference? This is probably way beyond this thread but in my case I had competing diagnosis. When I was a kid It was thought I was autstic but then the psychologist that said that died and the next 3 all said it was justndepresion and I needed to go make fri3new a and one that my mom tried to sue told us I would get over it after I had my first girlfriend...
> 
> And again if I say hi it could be sexiest if I say it the wrong way or if too many others have said hi...at least according to the thread so far.




Rest assured that no one wants to throw you out of a con for simply saying "hi" the wrong way. I realise it could be hard for you, but try not to get alarmed about the possibility. There is a huge difference between somebody being socially awkward (for whatever reason) and thus accidentally seeming a bit weird, and somebody who is being an intentional creep / sexist pig / et al.

Obviously, it can be difficult to gauge intent, but that is why the conversation is about respect and care for each other. Which means respect and care both for women generally, and for socially awkward men (or women), and for men generally, and for people of different ethnicity, and so forth.

Talk to people at cons, try to make friends. Trust that you won't cause offense. However, also trust that if you do accidentally cause some slight offence, rest-assured that you will be given a chance to explain. Trust that people who have genuine respect and care for others will accept a genuine explanation.


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> Why would any care about the third LotR movie or the stupid video game thing and why would we not want all gamers feeling welcome




Just so we're clear, Rygar was linking to an article on a site run by Roosh V, who also runs Return of Kings, a disgustingly misogynistic website promoting views like "no means no until it means yes" and "top 5 reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder!" He's also the organizer of International Fat Shaming week! A real prince of humanity, and clearly an excellent counter argument. 

Basically it's like linking an article by, I dunno, David Duke of the KKK to make a point on why we don't need anti-discrimination laws.


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> The past is why there are existing inequalities.




Duh.  But you mentioned this as if it were a roadblock to my suggestion (treat everyone equal) being unable to reach equality today.  What does the past have to do with fixing equality today?  If it has nothing to do with this issue, then lets disregard it.  The way to fix people being treated differently today is for everyone to be treated equally.  That's my claim.  You've tried the nirvana fallacy and now a pointless, unless you make the connection, distraction about past inequalities.  What else do you have?



Lehrbuch said:


> Fundamentally, because "male only" tables are socially-retarded idiocy, in the context of the gaming community. Especially if the main/only argument for having a "male only" table is "because it is reasonable to have women only tables and Men Must Be Equal".




My question was "What do the fact that some men are "socially-retarded idiots" have to do with disallowing male only tables?"

Your answer was "Fundamentally, because "male only" tables are socially-retarded idiocy, in the context of the gaming community."

Do you really think you answered that question?



Lehrbuch said:


> The world is more complicated and nuanced than you imagine.




I'm merely going off of your own criteria.  The only thing you listed was minority and majority.



Lehrbuch said:


> Having "adult only" tables isn't _only_ about excluding a minority. The main point of "adult only" (and "children") tables is that adults and children and teens have different interests, have different expectations about what should occur in a game, different expectations about game pacing, different capabilities to handle game mechanics and role-play, different comprehension capabilities. We all know this. The point of "adult-only" tables is that adults are children are _not_ equal.
> 
> That argument doesn't apply when thinking about gender.




Ok, so since the genders are equal then there's no reason for gendered only tables?

And no, this isn't about men and sexism in the gaming community because that'd be going back on what you just said...



Lehrbuch said:


> It's not because of sexism, it is because men are the majority, in the gaming community. It is inappropriate to set up circumstances whereby the majority can exclude the minority.


----------



## Taneras

Dannager said:


> Yeah, no. We've been finished with this particular social embarrassment for months, now. The discussion around Gamergate is over, and its legacy is not what you want it to be. Time to move on.




And you've clearly made the wrong distinctions if you wholeheartedly agree that all gamergaters should be forced out of gaming circles by social pressure.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ehren37 said:


> Just so we're clear, Rygar was linking to an article on a site run by Roosh V, who also runs Return of Kings, a disgustingly misogynistic website promoting views like "no means no until it means yes" and "top 5 reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder!" He's also the organizer of International Fat Shaming week! A real prince of humanity, and clearly an excellent counter argument.
> 
> Basically it's like linking an article by, I dunno, David Duke of the KKK to make a point on why we don't need anti-discrimination laws.



Holy ... I need to not look this stuff up...this is insane...


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> It's just such a weird and bizarre coincidence that their favorite (usually female) targets also received the most vicious harassment, isn't it? Crazy world we live in, all these coincidences.




You don't even know who I'm talking about or what videos I'm talking about, so how can you even make such a statement?



Obryn said:


> You know what might help? An open conversation about what they can do to stop the harassm- oh never mind. *That's what you guys have problems with over here!* Just another weird coincidence, though, I'm sure.




I never said I did have a problem with an open conversation about harassment.  In fact I've already said that this has raised awareness in me and I'm going to be trying to explain the importance of reporting incidents of harassment even if it didn't happen to you.

Two swings and two misses.


----------



## Jeanneliza

I was out for the day and I just saw this. I lost my youngest brother to suicide when he was 25, back in 1988. Bullying was a problem then, and is some what worse now in my opinion, with the anonymity of the internet giving courage to the bullies. I mentioned in a way earlier post on this thread, those who wouldn't speak up for any of the minorities would they stand for one of their own. I play RPG's online with a VTT and VoIP. It is the only way I have ever played. The community that is primary for this VTT is still somewhat small by internet standards and there are many smaller fan and gaming goups that particpate there as well. I was introduced to RPG's by a friend who had been gaming since his teens January 2014. This friend of 8 years and his friends were pretty awful in thei rgaming environment to outsiders, I left after 9 months. But because they were involved in the larger community I kept an eye on them. Last spring I became aware of an incident, and I have documented it with screen shots and such of them bullying a young white male, 25 years old. I saw his response to them on their Facebook page, and after my brothers death I got involved in suicide prevention. I saw a number of warning flags in his post, and another he made on the larger forum. I contacted him by private message, told him nothing more than I saw what had happened, I knew the bullies involved and that others, including myself had been bullied by that group. I just wanted to let him know he was not alone in his experience, to validate it, and let him know others SAW. 
He contacted me back, he had not put a gun to his head, he HAD blown up his computer. I had mentioned I had screenshots of the threads involving the bullying and even in text I could almost hear the tearful pleas, to please send it to the forum moderators if I could. I did so and let him know that, and also assured him that if he decided to return there to run or look for games to contact me, that I had a habit of keeping an eye on this group for my own sense of safety.  He did return a few months later, but I believe eventually moved his players to a more private server like google chat or skype, because he was still fairly fearful the bullies could start again. People, whether in face to face public conventions or online, unless you are playing with people you know personally you do NOT know their mental state, what they may be coping with and trying to get a few hours break in a game. It is not that hard to be kind to people, in a world where you can be anything you want to be.
Harassment, including sexual harassment are other words for bullying, for a weak person to feel powerful for a short time by exercising some level of control over another. They always target those who in their view are most vulnerable, least likely to speak or be believed if they do. It can only end when all of us have 0 tolerance for bullying no matter who the victim is, no matter what form it takes.
Sorry for your loss.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> You don't even know who I'm talking about or what videos I'm talking about, so how can you even make such a statement?
> 
> I never said I did have a problem with an open conversation about harassment.  In fact I've already said that this has raised awareness in me and I'm going to be trying to explain the importance of reporting incidents of harassment even if it didn't happen to you.
> 
> Two swings and two misses.



I'm really not in a "NOT ALL GAMERGATERS" mood. 

But go ahead and ask them what can be done to stop the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian and see how far you get before outright misogyny.


----------



## ehren37

GMforPowergamers said:


> Holy ... I need to not look this stuff up...this is insane...




I was happier in ignorance. Unfortunately that also also leads to a culture of avoiding addressing the ugly parts of fandom head on. 

If some of those guys left the hobby, it would cause a small dip in numbers, but over time, making it more welcoming to the other 51% will lead to a lot more gamers. Most fanfic writers are women. It's also been at least my experience women make up a larger percent of RP'ers in online MMO's. It's always been a bit baffling why there arent more women in gaming, but the more I see of the culture, the more it makes sense.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> I'm really not in a "NOT ALL GAMERGATERS" mood.
> 
> But go ahead and ask them what can be done to stop the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian and see how far you get before outright misogyny.




After your first two assumptions missed you weren't shy about making a third.  Kudos.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> Duh.  But you mentioned this as if it were a roadblock to my suggestion (treat everyone equal) being unable to reach equality today.  What does the past have to do with fixing equality today?




We've been through this. Simply treating everybody equally sounds like a good idea, but it only works if everyone is already treated equal. If we ignore existing inequality (which is created by the past, and the other social structures we are presently embedded in), then treating everyone equally merely perpetuates the status quo. We need to do better than simply treating everyone equally.



Taneras said:


> My question was "What do the fact that some men are "socially-retarded idiots" have to do with disallowing male only tables?"
> 
> Your answer was "Fundamentally, because "male only" tables are socially-retarded idiocy, in the context of the gaming community."
> 
> Do you really think you answered that question?




Yes.



Taneras said:


> Ok, so since the genders are equal then there's no reason for gendered only tables?




As I said, the world is more nuanced and complex than you imagine. 

The argument for why "women only" tables is a reasonable idea, and the argument for why "adult/children only" tables are a reasonable idea, are different arguments. Neither argument applies to "men only" tables. A man is neither a minority in the gaming community (like a woman), nor is a man (like a child) at a lesser developmental stage which has some impact on his capabilities and interests at gaming.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> After your first two assumptions missed you weren't shy about making a third.  Kudos.



Cool. Sorry if I got something wrong. What did I miss in your ironically-worded gamergate apologism post?


----------



## Barachiel

GMforPowergamers said:


> My knowledge of gamer gate... Anita sarkisian was on one side and got rich.




Do you know how often this has been DEBUNKED? This is the blame the victim mentality in full effect. In a straight white male patriarchal society, I am given every reason to almost always take the side of a POC, woman, homosexual and any mix of that than I am to take the side of the former. One side is oppressed, the other are the oppressors AND in power, willingly or not.

It sucks the "good ones" have to be dragged into that category, but it's just like the police situation. If there are so many good cops, than where the heck are they when the bad ones get outta control? They do nothing, for many reasons, either because of their stupid "blue code"/"brotherhood" crap or because they will get harassed by their fellows for "ratting" them out, but good people who do nothing are just as bad in my book. 

And it's the "good" people who are doing nothing that are making things so much more worse than it is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ace said:


> Just because nerds were involved means nothing whatever in any case I'm not moving the goalposts, you are.
> 
> Its not the same hobby. Pokemon is NOT D&D .Its not a role playing game . This you'll note is a D&D forum not a card forum .  The targeted areas was a card tournament
> 
> You don't get to include cases that make your point because a couple of neck beards were involved, The cases don't fit.
> 
> It is not the same hobby. In any case I don't play CCG's and am not responsible for that they do. The CCG guys at my FLGS are great, very nice helpful people, a very diverse group.
> 
> Even if it was  related a single case does not make your point,
> 
> On top of that  this isn't apparently even related to harassment but to a killing spree. I'm seeing little connection between this and harassment at Cons.



Wait, are you asserting that RPG hobbyists don't commit sexual/violent crimes?  Because if that is your position, you're dead wrong.  

Don't know what episode it was, but the true crime show _Deadly Women_ told of one LARPer who convinced another to kill for her.

And that isn't an isolated case.

Somewhere else on this board, someone else re-initiated a discussion from a 2002 issue of Dragon magazine about whether the prison system should continue to allow the existence of RPG groups.  It varies from state to state, and the Feds have their own rules.  That's right- more than a decade ago and continuing to this day, there were enough gamers in prisons in various states for permission for prisoners to engage in the RPG hobby to make the news.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482694-When-Dragons-Play-Dungeons

We may be outcasts in some ways, but behaviorally, we're not significantly different from the norm.


----------



## Barachiel

Taneras said:


> I understand what happened to Anita, and a big bulk of those against her are worse than her.   But what about the constructive criticism aimed at her and her videos?  A non bias video series would include such material.




All of those reply videos have actually been debunked by reply material against that. And the link I posted, as I said, isn't focused on Anita it's focused on the people that turned her into a pariah and anyone else, it covers racism, classism, and other issues as well. The people known as the "Angry Jacks"


----------



## cmad1977

Lehrbuch said:


> The argument for why "women only" tables is a reasonable idea, and the argument for why "adult/children only" tables are a reasonable idea, are different arguments. Neither argument applies to "men only" tables. A man is neither a minority in the gaming community (like a woman), nor is a man (like a child) at a lesser developmental stage which has some impact on his capabilities and interests at gaming.




That this requires explanation is as unsurprising as it is disappointing.


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> *If we ignore existing inequality* (which is created by the past, and the other social structures we are presently embedded in), then treating everyone equally merely perpetuates the status quo. We need to do better than simply treating everyone equally.




Calls to treat everyone the same come from seeing that inequality currently exists and needs to be corrected, so why are you starting from the position of "If we ignore existing inequality"?



Lehrbuch said:


> Yes.




Then you're saying that the reason why some males acting like socially retarded idiots is a factor in considering whether or not we should allow male only tables is because male only tables are socially retarded idiocy.

There's not one lick of logic behind that.



Lehrbuch said:


> The argument for why "women only" tables is a reasonable idea, and the argument for why "adult/children only" tables are a reasonable idea, are different arguments. Neither argument applies to "men only" tables. A man is neither a minority in the gaming community (like a woman), nor is a man (like a child) at a lesser developmental stage which has some impact on his capabilities and interests at gaming.




And none of that tells me why males shouldn't have their own male only tables - which was the original discussion.


----------



## Christopher Helton

This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Cool. Sorry if I got something wrong. What did I miss in your ironically-worded gamergate apologism post?




Pretty much the entire post.  You let your bias color your opinion before you even read what I actually typed and that's why your first post had two incorrect assumptions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> ...Return of Kings, a disgustingly misogynistic website...




Never heard of them until this thread.  I feel better for being enlightened.


----------



## mrm1138

Christopher Helton said:


> This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.




THIS a million times!


----------



## Taneras

Barachiel said:


> All of those reply videos have actually been debunked by reply material against that.




Lets be honest, you haven't seen all the critique videos so you can't possibly know which have been debunked.  Which have you watched?  Maybe we've seen the same ones.



Barachiel said:


> And the link I posted, as I said, isn't focused on Anita it's focused on the people that turned her into a pariah and anyone else, it covers racism, classism, and other issues as well. The people known as the "Angry Jacks"




The first video dealt with "why are you so angry" and I figured since the people in question actually have made critique videos it'd be best to hear it straight form the horses mouth rather than let the creator of "Angry Jack" tell us what he understands them as saying.

But this is getting off topic.  If you want, feel free to PM me.  We can discuss it more there.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Barachiel said:


> Do you know how often this has been DEBUNKED? This is the blame the victim mentality in full effect. In a straight white male patriarchal society, I am given every reason to almost always take the side of a POC, woman, homosexual and any mix of that than I am to take the side of the former. One side is oppressed, the other are the oppressors AND in power, willingly or not.
> 
> It sucks the "good ones" have to be dragged into that category, but it's just like the police situation. If there are so many good cops, than where the heck are they when the bad ones get outta control? They do nothing, for many reasons, either because of their stupid "blue code"/"brotherhood" crap or because they will get harassed by their fellows for "ratting" them out, but good people who do nothing are just as bad in my book.
> 
> And it's the "good" people who are doing nothing that are making things so much more worse than it is.



How did this become about race? I have no idea what was debunked...I assume the woman was wihte. And made her own review magazine. Or something...


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> Pretty much the entire post.  You let your bias color your opinion before you even read what I actually typed and that's why your first post had two incorrect assumptions.



Then I apologize. I'm sorry I read your post wrong. Are you saying you didn't mean it ironically then? What did you mean? 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> Lehrbuch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If we ignore existing inequality* (which is created by the past, and the other social structures we are presently embedded in), then treating everyone equally merely perpetuates the status quo. We need to do better than simply treating everyone equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calls to treat everyone the same come from seeing that inequality currently exists and needs to be corrected, so why are you starting from the position of "If we ignore existing inequality"?
Click to expand...



Apologies, I worded that poorly. 

You are proposing to treat everyone equally, but without considering and addressing and redressing existing inequality (or indeed the causes of existing inequality). I realise the impetus to treat everyone equally is the recognition that there is inequality. However, simply saying that we will "treat everyone equally" without addressing and redressing existing inequality is not enough of a solution.

If you don't understand this, there isn't really anything else I can tell you. Except to suggest that you educate yourself about inequality and how to go about reducing it.



Taneras said:


> Then you're saying that the reason why some males acting like socially retarded idiots is a factor in considering whether or not we should allow male only tables is because male only tables are socially retarded idiocy.
> 
> There's not one lick of logic behind that.




OK. I'm assuming that we don't want to do or enable things that are socially retarded. Maybe that's a big assumption?



Taneras said:


> And none of that tells me why males shouldn't have their own male only tables - which was the original discussion.




We've been through this previously. The purpose of a "male-only" table is simply and solely to exclude a minority. "Male only" tables reduce gender equality and opportunity in the gaming community.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Then I apologize. I'm sorry I read your post wrong. Are you saying you didn't mean it ironically then? What did you mean?
> 
> Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk




I meant exactly what I said.  While the whole GamerGate thing was going on there was a large portion of the community that was concerned about ethics and preached against harassment or even the mention of certain other individuals as it wasn't tied to ethics.  I made the estimation of "large" judging by the amount of videos and articles that said as much, and the content of the comments below said videos and articles.

Obviously, there was a lot of harassment.  But there was a lot of other stuff as well.


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> You are proposing to treat everyone equally, but without considering and addressing and redressing existing inequality (or indeed the causes of existing inequality).




How does treating everyone equally right here and right now not address/redress existing inequality?  Can you give a specific example?



Lehrbuch said:


> OK. I'm assuming that we don't want to do or enable things that are socially retarded. Maybe that's a big assumption?




What's socially retarded about a male only table?  I asked what do those few socially retarded men have to do with male only tables and your response was male only tables were socially retarded.

Moreover, and perhaps more worrisome, you originally used "socially retarded" to describe the male attendants who are behaving badly and have now moved that same term to all "male tables".



Lehrbuch said:


> We've been through this previously. The purpose of a "male-only" table is simply and solely to exclude a minority.




Says who?  You?  Have you asked why some guys might want this?


----------



## Fergurg

Christopher Helton said:


> This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.




I was talking about how to solve the problem without creating another problem.

And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.

Let's start with a simple one. "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. No exceptions." Should I be thrown out of a convention for saying that? Because under a Zero Tolerance policy, all that a transsexal has to do is say that I made him/her/whatever uncomfortable. And if so, why shouldn't I be able to have that person kicked out for expecting me to adhere to gnosticism?


----------



## Christopher Helton

*Again*: This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.


----------



## Fergurg

Christopher Helton said:


> *Again*: This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.




*And again:* I was talking about how to solve the problem without creating another problem.

And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.

Let's start with a simple one. "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. No exceptions." Should I be thrown out of a convention for saying that? Because under a Zero Tolerance policy, all that a transsexal has to do is say that I made him/her/whatever uncomfortable. And if so, why shouldn't I be able to have that person kicked out for expecting me to adhere to gnosticism?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> *Again*: This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.




Yes first order we need to drive the rape and physical assault down from 8%...that number needs to be less then 1%. gen com 50 is around the corner what can we do to make it a no rape weekend?


Edit maybe we should crowd fund extra security and have voulanteers to walk people home after dark... Maybe put alert whistles in every bag with your stuff


----------



## Taneras

Fergurg said:


> I was talking about how to solve the problem without creating another problem.
> 
> And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.
> 
> Let's start with a simple one. "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. No exceptions." Should I be thrown out of a convention for saying that? Because under a Zero Tolerance policy, all that a transsexal has to do is say that I made him/her/whatever uncomfortable. And if so, why shouldn't I be able to have that person kicked out for expecting me to adhere to gnosticism?




It's probably best to keep highly controversial political topics out of an event that has nothing to do with it.  I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with you, but that's just not the time or the place.

No, you shouldn't be kicked out unless you kept trying to create a scene by not dropping a topic not related in the least to table top gaming.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> I meant exactly what I said.  While the whole GamerGate thing was going on there was a large portion of the community that was concerned about ethics and preached against harassment or even the mention of certain other individuals as it wasn't tied to ethics.  I made the estimation of "large" judging by the amount of videos and articles that said as much, and the content of the comments below said videos and articles.
> 
> Obviously, there was a lot of harassment.  But there was a lot of other stuff as well.



Oh then no, that's exactly what I thought you said. 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Helton

Fergurg said:


> And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.




Yeah, because _that_ is how anti-harassment policies work. Once again, this isn't about men. I understand that you aren't used to topics not being about you, but this conversation has nothing to do with hypothetical situations about what might happen to a man. The fact that posters keep dragging it back to "_what about my feels_​" instead of the facts at hand just demonstrates the unreality of this entire situation.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> Once again, this isn't about men.




Agreed, lets leave gender out of this and focus on bad behavior.


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> A lot of people view verbal harassment as, "Anything I don't want to hear."  You see women reporting harassment because a man told another man a ribald joke and she overheard it.  I wouldn't want anyone kicked out of a con over a verbal harassment claim.  At least not without witnesses to the behavior that will say that the person wouldn't leave her alone when asked and kept it up.  Short of that, just have the con people just tell them to stay away from each other or they will have to leave.




I don't know if I would agree that a lot of people view it that way I do think a lot of millennials do. And I would cheerfully like to smack their parents for raising them that way.  The way the cons I know about define verbal harassment is this way making  racist, sexist, sexual, or bullying comments directed at a fellow con goer. IE calling a fat person a whale, or asking a someone to come rub your dick. These are not comments made as joke to friends but usually to strangers or someone you don't like. Being in a group like a panel, gaming table the Hugos and making comments that other people find offensive and when asked to stop you don't. 



MadAxe said:


> I have children. Two of them are reaching an age that they want to play tabletop games. I'm preparing to start them with a few games of Monte Cook's No Thank You Evil, but my intention has been to eventually transisition to other games like D&D.
> 
> This thread, and related threads, has me seriously reconsidering how I will do this. I want my kids to trust this hobby, but what I'm seeing says they can't.
> 
> That's what I want to change, but I'm seeing folks basically saying they refuse to change because politics. They don't want gaming to be accessible because they like saying crass things with the rest of the boys club, they like being able to say whatever regardless.




As a parent I can understand your fear. I had my worries about allowing my son to game and this was back when there were few anti harassment policies in effect and harassment was something we were just supposed to take. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that there are jerks every where and in gaming I truly believe that the good guys out number the jerks.



Koloth said:


> Does anyone know if the rate of reported harassment is higher or lower among the gaming community as compared to the population at large?
> 
> If females are allowed to demand and get all female games, for what ever reason, at conventions, then it is only fair that males be allowed the same privilege, for whatever reason.   Maybe they just want to avoid getting involved in a harassment claim, even as a witness.
> 
> I think it is a sad commentary on today's society that the 'Ethics Policy' as presented in the original post is even necessary.  Every point seems covered by existing laws and civil tort.




I can't believe that this has to be explained over an over again. In gaming men out number women by a large majority. Which means that a man will have no trouble finding an all male game. Look at any picture for a gaming con and you will see tables filled with men. The reason some want to run an all female game is to give women not only a chance to play in game where they feel safe or know what it is like to play just with their gender something men get to easily experience if they choose.  





Taneras said:


> True, but lets say some girls wanted to join and the guys wanted the table to remain all dudes?  Sure, there are still "other all dude tables", so what's 1 less one, right?  But to those who are part of that specific table, what good do those "other all dude tables" do for them who are now not at an all dudes table?  There's even a great chance that some of the other "all dude tables" would love to have female input at their table.
> 
> I'm shocked to see why people don't see applying different standards to each gender isn't a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but we're not talking about the need to treat every single thing in this world as if its equal, we're talking about genders specifically.  Why shouldn't genders be treated the same?





This will most likely be my last response to you on this because you seem to refuse to understand what I and other people are saying. Say the entire group of men at the con want a male only tables and there are only three females how are they supposed to find a table to play at? And again what can't you grasp about the fact that since you are in the majority you are not going to have a any issue finding a male only table to play at. 

This kind of reminds me of a whine I experienced on another forum where the woman asked for a private forum just for us. We were granted it and many men whined about so they were given a male only space to post. Five years later we women still post in ours the male only forum is gone because none of the men used because they didn't see the need they just posted in the other forums. 





GMforPowergamers said:


> But a0tolerance 1 compliant with no proof removal of my $1,000 and only vacation because some one took offense at something stupid I said is wrong...
> 
> If I say " rape the horses and kill the woman...eat did I get that backwards"  as a joke and the woman at the table behind me complains I should be force to apologize for being a jerk...not removed from gen con.




Here is the thing say you make a joke that bothers someone and they tell you that and you apologize then that is the end of it. But if you don't stop and keeping doing it that is when it becomes harassment. 



Taneras said:


> Ruibbish, if everyone was treated equally what would be the need for a female only table?  It wouldn't matter what gender you are, and it wouldn't matter what gender those are who are around you.  Everyone would be treated the same.  I actually have to explain this?




Because we are not treat equally. We can't be if we are out numbered by men. My gaming groups are made up of great guys they wanted to have a males only game as a side thing on a different night from our regular game. They explained to us gals there were two of us that they had no issue with us but they wanted a night to be just guys no women to let lose and do and say whatever men do when women are not around. We both understood it and were not offended I would love to play in all women's game because I think the dynamics would be different and it would make a great gals's night out. 

So I understand why people want to play in a game with their own gender , race or people of the same sexual orientation. And if women were equal in numbers to men at gaming cons then I would have no issue with some of the games being men only. But as I and others and you know this too we are not even close to having equal numbers. So until we do it should not be an issue if a few games out of 100 be female only. 



GMforPowergamers said:


> Forget jokes for a moment... Of I'm walking my dog and see and old black man walking and I smile and not saying "howdy" is that any diffrent then if he was a beutful woman? Am I sexiest for saying hello to one when in the same situation I would say and do the same to the other?
> 
> I ask because I normally do to everyone BUT there is a feminist video claiming men are pigs and half the things they say are generic good mornings
> 
> A joke can hurt someone's feelings of it does apologize and move on.  But don't kick someone out of there vacacrion be use you took offense where non was meant...and for God sale realize words are not the same as violence.




As a women I will explain this to you. A lot depends on how it is said, saying hi in a friendly non sexual way is one thing but often it is said in a leering way. Then you add to that the guys who chase you down if you don't say hi back and get in your face about it. I am overweight and middle aged so I don't get it much anymore but last year I was walking into Barnes and Noble and this guy said Hi how are you. I thought he was talking to the three young girls walking by him. So I ignored it. He chased me down screaming at me asking me if I was deaf and why was I being rude. I handled it by looking at him an signing that I was deaf and he was so embarrassed he backed of. 

That is why many women hate any strange guy talking to them because if they attractive they get cat called at so much and some of it is pretty rude. 

I am not saying don't be nice but understand why some women react and if they ignore you just keep going. 



Christopher Helton said:


> This might be a kooky idea, but maybe we could get back to talking more about what is actually happening to women, and less about hypotheticals about what might happen to men or their hurt feels.




This tactic being deployed here of denial and all the hypothetical what ifs is a very common tactic used to derail and distract from the subject. I see it all the time when discussing rape, domestic abuse, welfare, race issues.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Oh then no, that's exactly what I thought you said.




And yet you still made incorrect assumptions.  That should tell you something about your current perception on this issue.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> Yeah, because _that_ is how anti-harassment policies work. Once again, this isn't about men. I understand that you aren't used to topics not being about you, but this conversation has nothing to do with hypothetical situations about what might happen to a man. The fact that posters keep dragging it back to "_what about my feels_​" instead of the facts at hand just demonstrates the unreality of this entire situation.



Are you saying that everyone shouldn't be safe and have fun?

Again forget feels on both sides, words are the least of my concern if 8% of attendees are PHYSICAL ASSUALTED we need to stop that


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> Agreed, lets leave gender out of this and focus on bad behavior.




That would be great if this were a genderless problem, but it isn't. It is about women being harassed. If the topic were "_hey, men and women are getting harassed and threatened with rape in tabletop gaming_ then we could leave gender out the the discussion.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> Agreed, lets leave gender out of this and focus on bad behavior.




That would be great if this were a genderless problem, but it isn't. It is about women being harassed. If the topic were "_hey, men and women are getting harassed and threatened with rape in tabletop gaming_ then we could leave gender out the the discussion.


----------



## Lehrbuch

Taneras said:


> How does treating everyone equally right here and right now not address/redress existing inequality?  Can you give a specific example?




"Treating everyone equally right here and now" doesn't change the fact that woman are in the minority in the gaming community. Nor does it change the fact that women DMs are a minority. Nor does it change the fact that women (N)PCs in existing published material are in a minority. Nor does it change the fact that woman are a very small minority of old-time gamers.  



Taneras said:


> Moreover, and perhaps more worrisome, you originally used "socially retarded" to describe the male attendants who are behaving badly and have now moved that same term to all "male tables".




A table that happens to be men only due to circumstance, is not a problem. That's just "typical" and a consequence of demographics.

A table that is specifically set-up to be "men only" and refuses to let women participate. These men _are_ behaving badly. It is socially retarded.



Taneras said:


> Says who?  You?  Have you asked why some guys might want this?




I'm willing to listen to your reason for why a "male-only" table is a good idea.


----------



## Christopher Helton

We get that there are people who are hoping that this issue will be ignored, or that people will get tired of asshats trying to derail the discussion, however the time for hoping that this will go away is long past, and if people think we're going to stop talking about it. They're wrong.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Fergurg said:


> *And again:* I was talking about how to solve the problem without creating another problem.
> 
> And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.
> 
> Let's start with a simple one. "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. No exceptions." Should I be thrown out of a convention for saying that? Because under a Zero Tolerance policy, all that a transsexal has to do is say that I made him/her/whatever uncomfortable. And if so, why shouldn't I be able to have that person kicked out for expecting me to adhere to gnosticism?




I have never been to a GenCon or gaming Con, I am curious as to what context at a gaming convention the quote would be appropriate and in context?


----------



## Elf Witch

Fergurg said:


> *And again:* I was talking about how to solve the problem without creating another problem.
> 
> And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.
> 
> Let's start with a simple one. "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. No exceptions." Should I be thrown out of a convention for saying that? Because under a Zero Tolerance policy, all that a transsexal has to do is say that I made him/her/whatever uncomfortable. And if so, why shouldn't I be able to have that person kicked out for expecting me to adhere to gnosticism?




OMG seriously. The only way that a transgender would be offended by that is you were using it to discredit them. Because that it is how it is used. The whole I don't give a damn that your brain says you are female or male your DNA says you are not so get over it. And saying things like that to a trangender at a gaming con should get your butt kicked out at the max or told to shut up and leave them alone or you will be kicked out at the minimum.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> And frankly, as a man, I have a vested interest in not having a situation where a woman can have me thrown out of a convention because she doesn't like a political stance I take.




As a man, might I suggest that one effective tactic would be to work on reducing the amount of actual harassment, so that false/overblown accusations don't disappear in the statistical noise of the real deal, and can be handled fairly and appropriately?  Put differently, if there is less actual harassment, then false accusations will have lower odds of getting the innocent thrown out of a convention.


----------



## Fergurg

This was said about 40 pages ago or so, but actively doing injustice to innocent people is not a cost that has to be paid. The solution is a simple one:

Increased cameras, increased surveillance, more security, and an emphasis on "See something, say something". That is a system that works.

It cuts down on harassment and assaults right away because the very presence of cameras and security tends to put people on good behavior on its own. And when there is an accusation, it can often be proven or disproven. Get witnesses, get the footage. A "See something, say something" emphasis encourages people to speak up when they witness something themselves.

Plus, it has the additional benefit of clearing up when it was a misunderstanding. Maybe the accuser didn't hear it right. Maybe the accused was talking to somebody else.

Maybe the accused worded it badly or told a joke that he thought was innocent. I was 19 before I learned to not call a black man "boy". I honestly didn't know it was racist, until he told me. I haven't done it since.

One possibility that never occurred to me until someone mentioned it was that maybe the accused has a form of Tourette's or Autism - in that case, expulsion can get the convention in a whole lot of legal trouble, as these are covered by ADA.

These things will cut down the harassment without having "guilty or innocent, the accused has to leave". Why is that a bad thing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jeanneliza said:


> I have never been to a GenCon or gaming Con, I am curious as to what context at a gaming convention the quote would be appropriate and in context?




Roleplaying a malfunctioning Holo-MD in a sci-fi game?


----------



## Taneras

Elf Witch said:


> Say the entire group of men at the con want a male only tables and there are only three females how are they supposed to find a table to play at?




At that point I think our focus shouldn't be on the fact that the women didn't find a table to play at, its why, out of an entire convention that they couldn't find a table to play at.  Is this an honest concern of yours, that a convention will turn out this way?



Elf Witch said:


> And again what can't you grasp about the fact that since you are in the majority you are not going to have a any issue finding a male only table to play at.




So then there's no issue with a male only table as there are already tons...



Elf Witch said:


> This kind of reminds me of a whine I experienced on another forum where the woman asked for a private forum just for us. We were granted it and many men whined about so they were given a male only space to post. Five years later we women still post in ours the male only forum is gone because none of the men used because they didn't see the need they just posted in the other forums.




So give men their male only tables, they'll see that they didn't need it, and want to open up to females being allowed in - if that circumstance repeats itself in a gaming convention setting.



Elf Witch said:


> Because we are not treat equally.




Context matters, did you read that conversation?  You made a comment about how I'm refusing to see what others are saying and you cherry pick a comment out of a conversation and misconstrue it, intentionally or not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> Maybe the accused worded it badly or told a joke that he thought was innocent. I was 19 before I learned to not call a black man "boy". I honestly didn't know it was racist, until he told me. I haven't done it since.




Then you have witnessed, experienced, and been corrected by the _exact same kind_ of social pressure that is needed in the gaming community to end verbal assaults on females.

So now that you admit the tactic works, will you try it out on others in the new context?


----------



## Christopher Helton

Fergurg said:


> These things will cut down the harassment without having "guilty or innocent, the accused has to leave". Why is that a bad thing?




Because, as you have repeatedly been told this is not a courtroom. There is no concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Again, this is all just derailing tactics.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> And yet you still made incorrect assumptions.  That should tell you something about your current perception on this issue.



Yeah, should have stuck with my first inclination not to play the "NOT ALL GAMERGATERS" game. 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fergurg

Jeanneliza said:


> I have never been to a GenCon or gaming Con, I am curious as to what context at a gaming convention the quote would be appropriate and in context?




People talk about controversial subjects all the time, regardless of context. It would be appropriate when someone asks me, "So how do you define gender?" for example.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then you have witnessed, experienced, and been corrected by the _exact same kind_ of social pressure that is needed in the gaming community to end verbal assaults on females.
> 
> So now that you admit the tactic works, will you try it out on others in the new context?




Actually, that wasn't what did it. It took the black man actually telling me.


----------



## Elf Witch

posting issues


----------



## Elf Witch

I want to say something about female only tables.  I think if there are female DMs to run a few games then they are great idea. Not just because of the issues of feeling safe which is an issue. But as a female gamer with years of experience under my belt I still face certain assumptions when I game with men I don't know.

 One of the biggest is that no matter what I am playing there will be a guy trying to tell me how to play or as one idiot here put it babying the game down for me. 

There are men who will ignore any tactical suggestion I make because I am woman and turn around agree with man who makes the same suggestion. 

There are men who feel that my PC must be protected by them even if they are a squishy wizard and I am a kick butt fighter. 

Then there are the guys who simply don't know how to talk to me as gamer because of my sex and I am just not talking creepy just clueless and dealing with them is exhausting. 

Then there is the guys who view every female gamer they meet as a potential date. 

I would love to sit at a table where I can pretty much figure a lot of this is not going to happen. Plus it would be interesting to experience playing with my own gender and see how that is different. That is something I have never experienced. I have played a one on one with a female DM but that is not the same because it lacks the dynamic a party. 

Most men if they want can experience playing with just men.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Test.

(Posted to get around page block bug)


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Christopher Helton said:


> Because, as you have repeatedly been told this is not a courtroom. There is no concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
> 
> Again, this is all just derailing tactics.




You say derailing and I say "The most important part of the discussion"

we need a way I feel safe and so do they.


I have been relatively lucky I have only 3 times been physically assaulted in a gaming environment and only 3 or so times that verbally in any way that is worse then the guys treat each other... I know I am lucky that there are women who get it worse...

having said that, if you have to kick 5 guys that are just a bit of jerks out because one MIGHT assault me, I don't want any of them kicked out... unless they touch me...then those that do that can be hauled off one way or the other...


----------



## Fergurg

Christopher Helton said:


> Because, as you have repeatedly been told this is not a courtroom. There is no concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
> 
> Again, this is all just derailing tactics.




It's not derailing to say, "Here is why this idea won't work, so let's do this other one". That is called problem solving. I have an interest in solving the problem, but I want solutions that do not create more problems for me. I found one. I fail to see how you can be opposed to a policy that eliminates the need for "The accusation is the evidence" ... unless what you really want is a policy of "The accusation is the evidence."


----------



## Taneras

Lehrbuch said:


> "Treating everyone equally right here and now" doesn't change the fact that woman are in the minority in the gaming community.  Nor does it change the fact that women DMs are a minority. Nor does it change the fact that women (N)PCs in existing published material are in a minority. Nor does it change the fact that woman are a very small minority of old-time gamers.




If men and women are treated equally why is the distinction of majority/minority relevant?



Lehrbuch said:


> A table that is specifically set-up to be "men only" and refuses to let women participate. These men _are_ behaving badly. It is socially retarded.




I guess at this point this part should be put on hold because I'd just argue what I'm arguing above - that we should threat men and women the same.  If that's done, then their either both get gendered tables or neither get gendered tables.  Whether or not we should treat them equally, is again, what's being discussed above.



Lehrbuch said:


> I'm willing to listen to your reason for why a "male-only" table is a good idea.




I've already stated my stance on reasons.  I wouldn't ask a female group why they want a female only table so I wouldn't do the same to a male only table.  I personally wouldn't want a gendered only table.

That said, the default here isn't that the only reason men would want their own table is simple and only to exclude women - as you so boldly asserted.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Test




Sorry. You didn't pass. Please feel free to try again later.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannager said:


> You're right. We don't really care if a lack of tolerance and acceptance on your part causes you to be offended by others judging you for that very same lack of tolerance and acceptance. _*That's the point.*_




So you talk tolerance and acceptance out of one side of your mouth and then don't tolerate or accept me out of the other side.  That's a very hypocritical stance.  You should practice what you preach



> If this bothers you, _good._ Let's hope it continues bothering you until you finally decide to stop characterizing tolerance as "shoving political correctness down my throat." Or maybe you never will, and you'll become the modern-day equivalent of the old racist guy that everyone merely tolerates because he refused to change with the times.




Here's the thing.  I tolerate your position, even though I think *excessive* political correctness very silly position to take.  I can understand not calling someone retarded or a retard, but I think saying that calling a handicapped person handicapped is offensive and not politically correct is silly.  Handicap is a neutral descriptor of fact.  Someone with a disability does have a handicap and overcoming that handicap is great, but it doesn't make the handicap go away.

Where I draw the line is when people like you come to me and demand that I follow your silly views and/or call me big bad wrong for not following those silly views.  Feel free to be silly.  Call handicapped people physically challenged.  Call people who fall over vertically challenged.  Walk down the street in a chicken suit flapping your arms and clucking for all I care.  Just don't demand, expect or judge me for not being excessive with political correctness.

Only one of the two of us is actually practicing the tolerance that you preach, and it's not you.  I fully support your right to be excessively politically correct.  You don't support my right not to be.

Think about it.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Elf Witch said:


> I want to say something about female only tables.  I think if there are female DMs to run a few games then they are great idea. Not just because of the issues of feeling safe which is an issue. But as a female gamer with years of experience under my belt I still face certain assumptions when I game with men I don't know.
> 
> One of the biggest is that no matter what I am playing there will be a guy trying to tell me how to play or as one idiot here put it babying the game down for me.
> 
> There are men who will ignore any tactical suggestion I make because I am woman and turn around agree with man who makes the same suggestion.
> 
> There are men who feel that my PC must be protected by them even if they are a squishy wizard and I am a kick butt fighter.
> 
> Then there are the guys who simply don't know how to talk to me as gamer because of my sex and I am just not talking creepy just clueless and dealing with them is exhausting.
> 
> Then there is the guys who view every female gamer they meet as a potential date.
> 
> I would love to sit at a table where I can pretty much figure a lot of this is not going to happen. Plus it would be interesting to experience playing with my own gender and see how that is different. That is something I have never experienced. I have played a one on one with a female DM but that is not the same because it lacks the dynamic a party.
> 
> Most men if they want can experience playing with just men.





Can I just say AMEN to this... I have been gaming since I was 8, I have played through more editions then most men I know who game. I still have to 'prove' I know the rules to new groups... and the worst is when I try to get a boyfriend into the game and the guys at the store ask him how he got me to play...


----------



## Fergurg

Can we take the topic of female-only tables to another thread? It's really not related to this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> Actually, that wasn't what did it. It took the black man actually telling me.



So we've established that you're a bit of a Doubting Thomas.  The protestations of offensiveness only get through when the complaint is made by the offended person in front of you.

OK, disappointing, but we can work with that.

Adjust your empathic threshold up just a couple of notches.  If you hear a comment that could go either way on the funny/offensive meter, check out the expressions & body language of those who might be offended.  If they're cool with it, chill.

If not- if you see disappointment, anger, or similar emotions cross their face or change their body language- *speak up.*  If they actually object, first listen, then back them up if they actually sound legit.  Add your voice to the chorus.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> That would be great if this were a genderless problem, but it isn't. It is about women being harassed. If the topic were "_hey, men and women are getting harassed and threatened with rape in tabletop gaming_ then we could leave gender out the the discussion.




So you want help creating an anti-harassment policy that's aim is to prevent women from getting harassed?

How much work do you think it'd take to have that same anti-harassment policy just encompass everyone?


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Yeah, should have stuck with my first inclination not to play the "NOT ALL GAMERGATERS" game.




I agree, no use playing a game you're not very good at and don't appear to enjoy.


----------



## Christopher Helton

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> I have been relatively lucky I have only 3 times been physically assaulted in a gaming environment and only 3 or so times that verbally in any way that is worse then the guys treat each other... I know I am lucky that there are women who get it worse...




I'm sorry to hear that you have had to endure that. You shouldn't have had to.



HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> having said that, if you have to kick 5 guys that are just a bit of jerks out because one MIGHT assault me, I don't want any of them kicked out... unless they touch me...then those that do that can be hauled off one way or the other...




Again, though, we aren't talking about hypotheticals. We aren't talking about people being jerks. We aren't talking about people saying "incorrect" things. We talking about people harassing women, Full stop.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> So you want help creating an anti-harassment policy that's aim is to prevent women from getting harassed?
> 
> How much work do you think it'd take to have that same anti-harassment policy just encompass everyone?




harassment is the least of our concern... 8% of con goers are physically and or sexuall assaulted... not hurt feelings but rape... this is why I suggested us here at enworld start some kind of movement to add private security, maybe have a kickstarter or something.

I want to make Gen Con 50 (2017) a 100% rape free event... so lets start this year try to bring it down... we can make posters "If you see something do something or call XXX-XXXX for help" ype things


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Usually, harassment _policies_- the good ones, at least- are written as to be broad and inclusive.*  The examples used to illustrate them need not necessarily be so.







* that way, when someone inevitably invents a new way of being awful to others, it is more likely to be covered by the policy in place.


----------



## Elf Witch

Taneras said:


> At that point I think our focus shouldn't be on the fact that the women didn't find a table to play at, its why, out of an entire convention that they couldn't find a table to play at.  Is this an honest concern of yours, that a convention will turn out this way?
> 
> 
> 
> So then there's no issue with a male only table as there are already tons...
> 
> 
> 
> So give men their male only tables, they'll see that they didn't need it, and want to open up to females being allowed in - if that circumstance repeats itself in a gaming convention setting.
> 
> 
> 
> Context matters, did you read that conversation?  You made a comment about how I'm refusing to see what others are saying and you cherry pick a comment out of a conversation and misconstrue it, intentionally or not.




Yes it is not at big cons like Gencon but smaller ones. Last year at local con that has a gaming room the con committee had to step in because five out of the six DMs were refusing to allow women to play. And before anyone brings it up if the situation was reversed it would be as much a problem. 

That is the point there are plenty of male only tables. 

I used to go to Mediawest every year that is a con dedicated to fanzines and writing fan fiction out of the 900 attendees every year there are maybe about 15 to 20 men. They asked for a panel on fan fic writing just for men and one on writing female characters just for men. Both those panels were granted and no one was outraged or felt wait what about women only panels and that was because all most every panel was women only. 

I don't give a damn if you want to designate an equal amount of men only tables as women only tables if that is the only way for men who act like a bunch of whiny crybabies, and yes that is how I feel when I hear the majority whining about equality and unfairness, to accept female only tables.


----------



## Rygar

Christopher Helton said:


> Yeah, because _that_ is how anti-harassment policies work. Once again, this isn't about men. I understand that you aren't used to topics not being about you, but this conversation has nothing to do with hypothetical situations about what might happen to a man. The fact that posters keep dragging it back to "_what about my feels_​" instead of the facts at hand just demonstrates the unreality of this entire situation.




I posted several examples a few pages ago that demonstrate it isn't hypothetical.  It's also incredibly difficult to believe "This isn't about men" when posting to an article that is a thinly veiled attempt to post an article about "White male terrorists" to ENWorld.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> The irony being that calling it "political correctness" is itself an *act* of political correctness - an alteration of the presentation to protect people's delicate sensibilities.  It is putting a pleasant name on it, to make it more palatable.




Not for me.  I've never heard it called anything else, so that's just what I call it.  I'm making no attempt at political correctness with my statements.  What is the original?



> Let us call it what it really is - Treating people with thoughtfulness, compassion and decency.
> 
> We call it "political correctness" on the one side to not be offensive and accuse someone of acting like a jerk, and on the other side to cover up that the argument is over it being socially unacceptable to act like a jerk.




I'm not against political correctness.  I'm against excessive political correctness.  The latest silliness to come out of it is this idea of micro-aggressions.  Removing the N word, retard, and other blatantly offensive uses is fine.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Gen Con Attendance 61,423 in 2015 if 8% were assaulted that is 5,000 people...(4,914.8) what can we do to bring that down to a double digit number this year and a 0 next...


----------



## Christopher Helton

Rygar said:


> I posted several examples a few pages ago that demonstrate it isn't hypothetical.  It's also incredibly difficult to believe "This isn't about men" when posting to an article that is a thinly veiled attempt to post an article about "White male terrorists" to ENWorld.




You use these words...


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> I agree, no use playing a game you're not very good at and don't appear to enjoy.



Dude, if you want to pretend that your hate group has noble goals alongside shielding and enabling harassers, or that  those super important goals justify it, be my guest, but as I said - I'm not going to play along. 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Maxperson

Christopher Helton said:


> Provably wrong.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...on-tournament-shooting-plot-article-1.2334956




You should read that article. It's not about incitement to violence.  It's about violence originating with two people.  If you're going to "prove" someone wrong, you need to do better than an article that doesn't even remotely show what you're trying to have it show.


----------



## Fergurg

GMforPowergamers said:


> Gen Con Attendance 61,423 in 2015 if 8% were assaulted that is 5,000 people...(4,914.8) what can we do to bring that down to a double digit number this year and a 0 next...




Cameras. Increased security. "See something, say something." A policy that says that all harassment and assault claims will be treated seriously - which does not mean "The accusation is the evidence". Training for the security on how to handle situations like that.

Lt's go for gold here. Men to protect the women. Big men with guns to escort them to their rooms.


----------



## Taneras

Elf Witch said:


> I don't give a damn if you want to designate an equal amount of men only tables as women only tables if that is the only way for men who act like a bunch of whiny crybabies, and yes that is how I feel when I hear the majority whining about equality and unfairness, to accept female only tables.




Even after pointing out that you're not considering the context you still choose to fire blindly.  No, I wasn't suggesting an equal number of male only and female only tables either...


----------



## Elf Witch

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> Can I just say AMEN to this... I have been gaming since I was 8, I have played through more editions then most men I know who game. I still have to 'prove' I know the rules to new groups... and the worst is when I try to get a boyfriend into the game and the guys at the store ask him how he got me to play...




I started playing on my own not because of a guy. Years later I got the guy I was dating into playing and we joined a group and several of the guys asked him how he got me to play and what advice he could offer to them to get their girl friends to play. He looked at them and said I don't know maybe date someone who shares your hobbies. 

And no I was not insulted or felt harassed I was a little peeved that the assumption was we can't find geek hobbies on our own. 

One thing I did notice was how he was treated as newbie as opposed to another newbie who joined months later who was a woman. He was basically thrown in and told to swim. Rarely was advice given unless he asked he was never told how to play his alignment or what spells to pick. The newbie woman was inundated with advice on how to play they tried to hand hold her through every step. She actualy picked up the rules faster than my boy friend  but was treated as a helpless newbie far longer than he was.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Dude, if you want to pretend that your hate group has noble goals alongside shielding and enabling harassers, or that  those super important goals justify it, be my guest, but as I said - I'm not going to play along.




You can keep your own score but the actual scoreboard has you making two incorrect assumptions right off the bat then refusing to discuss the topic further.  I'm sorry this conversation didn't go your way.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Christopher Helton said:


> I'm sorry to hear that you have had to endure that. You shouldn't have had to.



thank you... and again I want to point out in general, I think most of us (gamers at cons and stores and home games) aren't the worst, I hear way worse at concerts or sports things. I also think that the few minor issues over almost twenty years were minor compared to some stories I have heard.  If you are a woman at a con in cos play out side smokeing you will find people that come up and say the worst things...and I feel like I have always come away ok. 





> Again, though, we aren't talking about hypotheticals. We aren't talking about people being jerks. We aren't talking about people saying "incorrect" things. We talking about people harassing women, Full stop.



 Good because people saying stupid junk is one thing... but true harassment (and trust me I have seen and heard a lot including a crying little girl who must have been less then 13 and her mom in the bathroom at Dragon Con one year... I find my eyes tearing up just thinking of it.


We need to do better, and threads like this could do a lot of good if we all talk through it and make some real changes... but not if we break down to dumb arguments. The other thing is don't let perfect be the enemy of good...we need changes today


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> You use these words...




You said that you wanted help creating an anti-harassment policy aimed at reducing/eliminating harassment/assault/rape of women.  How hard would it be to modify that policy to include everyone, not just women?


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Fergurg said:


> Cameras. Increased security. "See something, say something." A policy that says that all harassment and assault claims will be treated seriously - which does not mean "The accusation is the evidence". Training for the security on how to handle situations like that.
> 
> Lt's go for gold here. Men to protect the women. Big men with guns to escort them to their rooms.



in theory this sounds great... and the top half I am 100% behind... but I have to be a pain for amoment. 

big men with guns are not that trust worthy (I grew up in the south and know many big men with guns) I don't want that... although traveling in groups is better then alone


----------



## MechaPilot

GMforPowergamers said:


> Its the cops job to find out who did it they can't all be as inept as my local ones...




Cops can be highly decorated and experienced, with quality criminologists and prosecutors to back them up, but a lack of evidence to analyze and to present at trial (i.e. no camera footage, no eye-witnesses willing to come forward, and no bodily fluids left behind) means all the cases amount to "he-said she-said" and will never see the inside of a courtroom because prosecutors know they'll lose.

I think that improving camera coverage so that at least 80% of reported cases of assault can be confirmed or affirmatively denied* by the camera footage is what's needed.  Cameras may be ineffective at preventing verbal harassment, as others have pointed out.  However, as a victim of harassment I firmly believe that what I went through, although it was humiliating, degrading, and terrifying, would have been a drop in the bucket compared to how I would have felt if the men who harassed me had sexually assaulted me.

*affirmatively denied meaning proved not to have happened, not meaning simply that the camera couldn't see what happened.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So we've established that you're a bit of a Doubting Thomas.  The protestations of offensiveness only get through when the complaint is made by the offended person in front of you.
> 
> OK, disappointing, but we can work with that.
> 
> Adjust your empathic threshold up just a couple of notches.  If you hear a comment that could go either way on the funny/offensive meter, check out the expressions & body language of those who might be offended.  If they're cool with it, chill.
> 
> If not- if you see disappointment, anger, or similar emotions cross their face or change their body language- *speak up.*  If they actually object, first listen, then back them up if they actually sound legit.  Add your voice to the chorus.




In regards to my time at 19, the story is more complicated than that; it's not relevant except that it wasn't me trying to be racist, but me genuinely not knowing that I was saying something racist.

And part of my Good Idea is "See something, say something". Sometimes, it can be as simple as a misunderstanding.


----------



## Maxperson

Christopher Helton said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...45c1fa-2971-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html




Boys talking about "hitting it" and homophobia are not gamer issues.  The article attempts to make that connection, but the issue is really one about boys and girls and gaming has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Taneras

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> in theory this sounds great... and the top half I am 100% behind... but I have to be a pain for amoment.
> 
> big men with guns are not that trust worthy (I grew up in the south and know many big men with guns) I don't want that... although traveling in groups is better then alone




I agree, if anyone is accompanying women to their rooms it should be people they choose because they're comfortable around them.  Also it's probably best to pick more than one.  Not knocking women's judgement, all people have their shortsights and misjudge people.  It's probably best to have more than one.


----------



## Taneras

MechaPilot said:


> Cops can be highly decorated and experienced, with quality criminologists and prosecutors to back them up, but a lack of evidence to analyze and to present at trial (i.e. no camera footage, no eye-witnesses willing to come forward, and no bodily fluids left behind) means all the cases amount to "he-said she-said" and will never see the inside of a courtroom because prosecutors know they'll lose.
> 
> I think that improving camera coverage so that at least 80% of reported cases of assault can be confirmed or affirmatively denied* by the camera footage is what's needed.  Cameras may be ineffective at preventing verbal harassment, as others have pointed out.  However, as a victim of harassment I firmly believe that what I went through, although it was humiliating, degrading, and terrifying, would have been a drop in the bucket compared to how I would have felt if the men who harassed me had sexually assaulted me.
> 
> *affirmatively denied meaning proved not to have happened, not meaning simply that the camera couldn't see what happened.




I agree, most all sexual crimes are tough to prosecute, even with DNA (it could be argued that the sex was consensual).  I'm not saying don't call the police if a law is broken, only that the odds of a court actually getting a guilty verdict on a guilty person without good evidence is almost zero, that's just how the courts are designed to work.

We have to look within the convention.  I think cameras are a great addition.  I think awareness about reporting incidents, even if they didn't happen to you, is very important.  If its a he said she said then it might be a tough call for the staff, but if its multiple people against one person the decision should be obvious.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> In regards to my time at 19, the story is more complicated than that; it's not relevant except that it wasn't me trying to be racist, but me genuinely not knowing that I was saying something racist.




Actually, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, check out the other Harassment thread- and the blog that started both-  you'll notice that we've ALSO been talking about those who are not intentional sexists, but who are nonetheless helping create or maintain an environment where sexism can thrive *since the inception of this discussion.* (Ditto the whole "See it; report it." suggestion.)

So actually, unintentionally racist 19 year old you is _perfectly _analogous- and thus, relevant- to those unintentional sexists.

So I say again, you have personally modified your (unwitting) racist behavior because of social pressure.  Are you willing to exert some social pressure to rectify sexist behavior?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> In regards to my time at 19, the story is more complicated than that; it's not relevant except that it wasn't me trying to be racist, but me genuinely not knowing that I was saying something racist.




Actually, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, check out the other Harassment thread- and the blog that started both-  you'll notice that we've ALSO been talking about those who are not intentional sexists, but who are nonetheless helping create or maintain an environment where sexism can thrive *since the inception of this discussion.* (Ditto the whole "See it; report it." suggestion.)

So actually, unintentionally racist 19 year old you is _perfectly _analogous- and thus, relevant- to those unintentional sexists.

So I say again, you have personally modified your (unwitting) racist behavior because of social pressure.  Are you willing to exert some social pressure to rectify sexist behavior?


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Taneras said:


> I agree, if anyone is accompanying women to their rooms it should be people they choose because they're comfortable around them.  Also it's probably best to pick more than one.  Not knocking women's judgement, all people have their shortsights and misjudge people.  It's probably best to have more than one.




again groups both guys and girls... groups are good.

Last time I was at a Con we had a night game that ran late it was like midnight when we called it, and most of us went to the Ram for burgers (the big one I can't finish) and one of the guys an older fellow offered to walk me back to my hotel. I had just met him that night, and yea he seemed cool like a grand father and he didn't stare or say anything wrong, but I felt I had to say no... because I just didn't know. I got doubley lucky because the kid who ran the event said we could all go... I felt much better even though that was 3 strange guys...none of them did anything inappropriate and they only walked me to the lobby then headed back to there hotels...

it sucks to have to think that way. But you have to sometimes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Boys talking about "hitting it" and homophobia are not gamer issues.




True.  But gamers shouldn't get a free pass on the issue, either.  We have to look into the mirror just like everyone else and decide which kind of person we are- tolerant or intolerant of such public behavior in our events and venues?


----------



## MechaPilot

Elf Witch said:


> I want to say something about female only tables.  I think if there are female DMs to run a few games then they are great idea. Not just because of the issues of feeling safe which is an issue. But as a female gamer with years of experience under my belt I still face certain assumptions when I game with men I don't know.
> 
> One of the biggest is that no matter what I am playing there will be a guy trying to tell me how to play or as one idiot here put it babying the game down for me.
> 
> There are men who will ignore any tactical suggestion I make because I am woman and turn around agree with man who makes the same suggestion.
> 
> There are men who feel that my PC must be protected by them even if they are a squishy wizard and I am a kick butt fighter.
> 
> Then there are the guys who simply don't know how to talk to me as gamer because of my sex and I am just not talking creepy just clueless and dealing with them is exhausting.
> 
> Then there is the guys who view every female gamer they meet as a potential date.
> 
> I would love to sit at a table where I can pretty much figure a lot of this is not going to happen. Plus it would be interesting to experience playing with my own gender and see how that is different. That is something I have never experienced. I have played a one on one with a female DM but that is not the same because it lacks the dynamic a party.
> 
> Most men if they want can experience playing with just men.




I'd like to add one of my experiences to the list.

When I game with men as a player (instead of as the DM, which I usually am these days) I have to actively omit my character pursuing any non-platonic relationships during play.  In several games where I have had characters who pursued non-platonic relationships in-game I have been accused of "girly-ing up the game," or have had fellow players take that as some kind of sign that I'm looking for a romantic or sexual relationship in real life.


----------



## Elf Witch

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> thank you... and again I want to point out in general, I think most of us (gamers at cons and stores and home games) aren't the worst, I hear way worse at concerts or sports things. I also think that the few minor issues over almost twenty years were minor compared to some stories I have heard.  If you are a woman at a con in cos play out side smokeing you will find people that come up and say the worst things...and I feel like I have always come away ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Good because people saying stupid junk is one thing... but true harassment (and trust me I have seen and heard a lot including a crying little girl who must have been less then 13 and her mom in the bathroom at Dragon Con one year... I find my eyes tearing up just thinking of it.
> 
> 
> We need to do better, and threads like this could do a lot of good if we all talk through it and make some real changes... but not if we break down to dumb arguments. The other thing is don't let perfect be the enemy of good...we need changes today




This is what bothers me is the fact as women we are used to dealing with this because it happens all the time. I know and many of my friends categorize crap like this as well he only said one thing and when I moved away he didn't follow me so it is okay I guess at least he didn't keep it up or escalate it. 

I wonder how many deal with this all the time? If they have to deal with unwanted comments when they step outside to smoke? 

And as you said it happens else where at other places. I went to a professional soccer game and I had my butt touched several times and the people I went with told me to me glad it was just my butt. At least my butt was not painfully pinched or smacked. 

Come on open your eyes all you guys worrying about hypothetical maybes of some innocent guy getting kicked out of a con. I told myself I was not going to lose my temper but I am. What part do you not understand women deal with this crap all the time. We are taught as teens how to avoid rape how to deal with leeches who try an touch us and to ignore cat callers I was taught don't make eye contact don't react and walk faster. 

It needs to stop period. Men who don't do this need to tell guys who do knock it of. Women need to stop taking it and we do take it we all taught not to make a scene. 

I am really pleased at all the men who are speaking up and saying it is wrong I am disgusted at those trying to turn this into well men get mistreated too and we need to be fair. 

I am not an unholy bitch and I don't want to see men punished for something they didn't do but since that is a rarity in cases of harassment  can we shut about it. 

And stop with the strawmen that some of you are posting about how anti harassment should also protect more than women. They do protect all people including straight white guys. Everyone who attends a con that has an anti harassment policy is covered. It is meant to protect you as well from harassment. I challenge you to go and find one anti harassment policy that allows women to harass men while not allowing men to do it to women.


----------



## MechaPilot

GMforPowergamers said:


> Gen Con Attendance 61,423 in 2015 if 8% were assaulted that is 5,000 people...(4,914.8) what can we do to bring that down to a double digit number this year and a 0 next...




I'd like to thank you for continuing to bring this up.  In a thread full of distractions, that's a welcome signpost back to a worthwhile discussion.


----------



## Nylanfs

Lehrbuch said:


> Yes. Which is a ridiculous reason for refusing. A group of women wanted the opportunity to game with other women, and it was refused because it might make other gamers question whether their community was safe for woman.




No the point was it wasn't refused, one person posted that they thought this was divisive to the community, which I replied they were being too sensitive to the subject. And I'm guessing they then went on a underground campaign to harass and engineer a boycott of ALL of her games last weekend. Which if that is the case  Ellspeth I am sorry that it happened and it is complete crap that it happened. I have stronger words for this, but Morrus's grandmother may not approve.


----------



## Taneras

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> again groups both guys and girls... groups are good.
> 
> Last time I was at a Con we had a night game that ran late it was like midnight when we called it, and most of us went to the Ram for burgers (the big one I can't finish) and one of the guys an older fellow offered to walk me back to my hotel. I had just met him that night, and yea he seemed cool like a grand father and he didn't stare or say anything wrong, but I felt I had to say no... because I just didn't know. I got doubley lucky because the kid who ran the event said we could all go... I felt much better even though that was 3 strange guys...none of them did anything inappropriate and they only walked me to the lobby then headed back to there hotels...
> 
> it sucks to have to think that way. But you have to sometimes.




There's nothing wrong with a polite no if you feel uncomfortable.  That's something else to add to awareness if someone creates a list.  Listen to your instincts.


----------



## Elf Witch

MechaPilot said:


> I'd like to add one of my experiences to the list.
> 
> When I game with men as a player (instead of as the DM, which I usually am these days) I have to actively omit my character pursuing any non-platonic relationships during play.  In several games where I have had characters who pursued non-platonic relationships in-game I have been accused of "girly-ing up the game," or have had fellow players take that as some kind of sign that I'm looking for a romantic or sexual relationship in real life.




I would never bring something like romance or sex in the game with guys I don't know. They can get so weird about it. In one game the male PCs went to a brothel and my lone female PC went to dinner with the town's sheriff and spent the night with him. I had to deal with the entire I didn't know your PC was easy. And they were often suggesting I seduce the guard of the King. It got so tiresome. 

And yes I read enough threads on here about how some groups hate romance in the game.

Luckily my regular group is all for romance if it fits and it is not treated as weird or girly.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, check out the other Harassment thread- and the blog that started both-  you'll notice that we've ALSO been talking about those who are not intentional sexists, but who are nonetheless helping create or maintain an environment where sexism can thrive *since the inception of this discussion.* (Ditto the whole "See it; report it." suggestion.)
> 
> So actually, unintentionally racist 19 year old you is _perfectly _analogous- and thus, relevant- to those unintentional sexists.
> 
> So I say again, you have personally modified your (unwitting) racist behavior because of social pressure.  Are you willing to exert some social pressure to rectify sexist behavior?




I think you have me confused with someone else. My only objection here is to the idea of a "one accusation means expulsion". In fact, pointing out to someone when they are out of line would be appropriate many times.


----------



## Taneras

GMforPowergamers said:
			
		

> Gen Con Attendance 61,423 in 2015 if 8% were assaulted that is 5,000 people...(4,914.8) what can we do to bring that down to a double digit number this year and a 0 next...




Keep in mind that 8% figure came from a poll which had around 60% female response.  I doubt Gen Con's 61,500 attendance was ~37,000.  The high number of female respondents surely skewed the percentages.

Not trying to diminish, just trying to be accurate.  Still, even assuming a 1% (8 times lower) still lands you in the hundreds.  So the point is still easily made.  I just don't want to over inflate the issue and scare people off.  5k sexual assaults out of 62k is insane.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MechaPilot said:


> I'd like to thank you for continuing to bring this up.  In a thread full of distractions, that's a welcome signpost back to a worthwhile discussion.



I was one of the side line talk about guys people but point blank Umbria opened my eyes pretty wide with the 8% number from a similar con...even if we are twice as good and it's ONLY 4% that is still 2500 assaults. That can not be allowed to contnue


----------



## Taneras

Double post, sorry.  This website has been acting up lately.


----------



## MechaPilot

GMforPowergamers said:


> I was one of the side line talk about guys people but point blank Umbria opened my eyes pretty wide with the 8% number from a similar con...even if we are twice as good and it's ONLY 4% that is still 2500 assaults. That can not be allowed to contnue




Well then I'm even more glad that Umbran did that, but I'm also glad that you were willing to have an open mind and not simply dismiss what he posted.


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> harassment is the least of our concern... 8% of con goers are physically and or sexuall assaulted... not hurt feelings but rape... this is why I suggested us here at enworld start some kind of movement to add private security, maybe have a kickstarter or something.




Harassment is *absolutely not* the least of our concerns. It may be a lesser problem than assault but it's part of the spectrum of how women are treated by men who are idiots and have problems behaving like they belong in public. I doubt there are many gropers and attackers who didn't start smaller with off-color comments and harassment before escalating to physical behavior.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Elf Witch said:


> This is what bothers me is the fact as women we are used to dealing with this because it happens all the time. I know and many of my friends categorize crap like this as well he only said one thing and when I moved away he didn't follow me so it is okay I guess at least he didn't keep it up or escalate it.




it's sad but true... I have had guys (friends I trust) look at me like I just grew a second head because I said I 'only' X Y or Z... I shouldn't have to 'only put up with' but I grew up into video games, comic books and fantasy rpgs... I had people older then my grandmother making sexual comments to me before I finished puberty... I just got used to it some how.





> I wonder how many deal with this all the time? If they have to deal with unwanted comments when they step outside to smoke?



  some how smoking is like an invitation... I don't get it at all.




> And as you said it happens else where at other places. I went to a professional soccer game and I had my butt touched several times and the people I went with told me to me glad it was just my butt. At least my butt was not painfully pinched or smacked.



 Bars, Games, Concerts... I swear I should charge lap dance fees at some of them for the feel they get... and for the record that sick joke is how I try to pass off the sick feeling that hits me every time.



> Come on open your eyes all you guys worrying about hypothetical maybes of some innocent guy getting kicked out of a con. I told myself I was not going to lose my temper but I am. What part do you not understand women deal with this crap all the time. We are taught as teens how to avoid rape how to deal with leeches who try an touch us and to ignore cat callers I was taught don't make eye contact don't react and walk faster.




OMG... my mom told me the 'no eye concact' thing at 9... and made sure I knew yelling fire got more attention then yelling rape. I know I'm messed up and came from a messed up place, but is that normal to you guys?



> It needs to stop period. Men who don't do this need to tell guys who do knock it of. Women need to stop taking it and we do take it we all taught not to make a scene.
> 
> I am really pleased at all the men who are speaking up and saying it is wrong I am disgusted at those trying to turn this into well men get mistreated too and we need to be fair.



 I am trying to not get mad myself...I said before I checked back here I was going to remain calm...



> I am not an unholy bitch and I don't want to see men punished for something they didn't do but since that is a rarity in cases of harassment  can we shut about it.



 QFT



Elf Witch said:


> I would never bring something like romance or sex in the game with guys I don't know. They can get so weird about it.



 I know...it's like even if you are sleeping with someone at the table everyone thinks you must play this pure virgin character...




> In one game the male PCs went to a brothel and my lone female PC went to dinner with the town's sheriff and spent the night with him. I had to deal with the entire I didn't know your PC was easy. And they were often suggesting I seduce the guard of the King. It got so tiresome.




what, your PC has a girl in every town, and frequents whores on top of that... but I make mention of wanting to bang the CHA 20 paliden and I'm a what... I would be careful with your choice of words DM boy...because if it begins with an S or a W you might need to find a new player... sorry that wasn't me keeping calm...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> I think you have me confused with someone else. My only objection here is to the idea of a "one accusation means expulsion". In fact, pointing out to someone when they are out of line would be appropriate many times.



No, no confusion.  That's why I quoted your posts.  I'm using you as an example.

You seemed to think that your situation at 19 was different.  It isn't.  You acted in ignorance and were corrected by social pressure.   That's great.  There are some in this thread- not necessarily you- who seem to think social pressure is unwarranted or ineffective.  You're a counter to that position.

In addition, as I discussed upthread- or was it the other thread?- "One accusation" occasionally gets people tossed from venues for a reason: the venues have hard data collected worldwide via their trade organization IAVM and law enforcement that tells them removing the accused is most often the most efficient and reliable way to keep the peace in their venues/events.

Now, to clarify, larger venues do not necessarily remove you from the premises based on a single accusation.  Some will merely take you to another area within the building- be that just another area or an actual holding cell- and ask you not to interact with your accuser.  

Others- the ones with SERIOUS bankrolls- may well eject you after a single accusation...because they have video evidence that shows or seems to show corroboration.  There are some venues that have you on camera once you get out of a car in their parking areas, and have some powerful facial recognition software to go along with it.

Some also have undercovers.

So if you see someone tossed seemingly after just a single accusation of harassment, be aware that the venue's security may be acting upon more evidence than you realize.


----------



## billd91

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> I have been relatively lucky I have only 3 times been physically assaulted in a gaming environment and only 3 or so times that verbally in any way that is worse then the guys treat each other... I know I am lucky that there are women who get it worse...




I've been to well over 30 conventions in my life and you know how many times i've been physically assaulted or spoken to in any way I found close to menacing or harassing? Zero. Yet this is what women like HardcoreDandDGirl get conditioned into thinking by the behavior of some of the men in the community - that they are relatively lucky to have been physically assaulted *only* 3 times. That's how bad the problem is. That's how far this is from what should be a normal expectation of zero physical assaults in over 30 years of gaming.

Edit: Sorry to use your post as a springboard for this HardcoreDandDGirl, but your comment perfectly illustrates the different mindset women have to be in around these events in order to protect themselves compared to men.


----------



## damned

Maxperson said:


> Boys talking about "hitting it" and homophobia are not gamer issues.  The article attempts to make that connection, but the issue is really one about boys and girls and gaming has nothing to do with it.




This is true. We should be having these conversations at work, at sporting groups, everywhere.

I havent read all 70+ pages of posts here but I am of the opinion that we should accept the word of complainants as being true. If its an allegation of verbal impropriety a word with the accused is required. If its ongoing and witnessed then that person should be counselled and/or removed from the premise. Repeat offenders should be banned. If it warrants reporting to the police then it should be reported to the police.

This wont change overnight. In fact it will probably get worse before it gets better. People will get upset, people will take umbrage at being called out. Friendships will be tested. Some people will take their dice and go play elsewhere. If you do get called out - dont let that define you - think about what you said or did and fix it. Say sorry and dont do it again. Thats not so hard and it will go a long way to making things better for everyone.

And yes - any sort of formal policies that are put into effect should apply to everyone equally.


----------



## MechaPilot

billd91 said:


> Harassment is *absolutely not* the least of our concerns. It may be a lesser problem than assault but it's part of the spectrum of how women are treated by men who are idiots and have problems behaving like they belong in public. I doubt there are many gropers and attackers who didn't start smaller with off-color comments and harassment before escalating to physical behavior.




It could have been phrased better because I agree that it's not the "least" of our concerns: my harassment experience was certainly horrible.  It almost drove me from the hobby and I don't want anyone else to have to go through that.  But, I will confess that I think it would pale in comparison to being sexually assaulted or raped.

And, I will add that sexual assault and rape, as physical acts that could potentially be caught on camera, are easier to catch with a simple investment in more security (whereas reducing harassment requires generating community involvement, and it's much harder to move people to act than it is to install more cameras, have a police liaison, and increase the security presence).

Failing to address/reduce cases of assault and rape is more shameful to me as a member of the gaming community than failing to address harassment.  Both need to be addressed and savagely reduced, but I think one is a more severe problem than the other if for no other reason than one involves actually violating someone else's body.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

billd91 said:


> I've been to well over 30 conventions in my life and you know how many times i've been physically assaulted or spoken to in any way I found close to menacing or harassing? Zero. Yet this is what women like HardcoreDandDGirl get conditioned into thinking by the behavior of some of the men in the community - that they are relatively lucky to have been physically assaulted *only* 3 times. That's how bad the problem is. That's how far this is from what should be a normal expectation of zero physical assaults in over 30 years of gaming.




I am almost 30... I have been gaming since I was 8, my first Con was a local one at the age of 13 and I hate to say it but I know almost no woman who go to cons and stores and play that don't have at least 1 story...

Not one of my woman friends that aren't gamers can say they don't have at least a 'feel uncomforable' story so I don't want to make it sound like it is just gamers. 

How ever I would kill for the next little girl who wants to play D&D comes here and say "Never happened to me..."


----------



## Dannager

Maxperson said:


> So you talk tolerance and acceptance out of one side of your mouth and then don't tolerate or accept me out of the other side.  That's a very hypocritical stance.  You should practice what you preach




Hi, Maxperson. I'm not going to be particularly kind to you, in this post. I'm not going to be overtly rude to you, but I'm not going to be kind to you. I honestly don't have the patience for it (and that's saying a lot). If you require kindness in your discussions, I suggest skipping this post and perhaps this thread. It probably isn't for you.

Let's break this down.



> So you talk tolerance and acceptance out of one side of your mouth




You are under the mistaken belief that I advocate unconditional tolerance.

That is a straight up absurd, absolutely ludicrous belief, and about thirty seconds of serious thought would have shown you that.

No one advocates unconditional tolerance, because unconditional tolerance _*is a bad thing.*_ You know this, of course - you just haven't connected the dots. It's the reason almost no one tolerates slavers, rapists, and other people who are unrepentant in their abuses. Again: no one advocates the unconditional tolerance you seem to think I advocate.

What people _*do*_ advocate is _compassionate tolerance_, especially of the things that people have no control over, or that they have no moral imperative whatsoever to change. Gender. Sexuality. Race. Ableness. These things (and more!) should be tolerated and embraced.

_Ideology_, though? Ideology should only be tolerated when the ideology is neutral, at worst, and ideally only when it is positive.

You have a certain ideology, Maxperson. I'm not a fan of it. I'm not a fan because your ideology suggests that individuals do not have a moral imperative to be considerate in their speech and their actions. Your ideology is not one of compassionate tolerance. Your ideology is callous, and that's describing it _charitably. _



> and then don't tolerate or accept me out of the other side




That's right. I don't tolerate your ideology. For the same reason that I don't tolerate any other form of toxic bigotry. And I'm not the only one here who shares that view. Now, it may be that your personal set of beliefs doesn't rise to the revolting level that overt racism, for example, might. I can't say. What I _can_ say is that tolerating or accepting you and the ideology you profess here _would be morally wrong of me._ It would make the world a worse place, if I tolerated what you believe. I do not tolerate your ideology, because your ideology _harms._



> That's a very hypocritical stance.




Nope. You didn't understand my stance. Now you do. I'm being as crystal clear as I possibly can on this, because you have had a problem understanding the positions of the people you're talking to up to this point. I'm trying to avoid that going forward.



> You should practice what you preach




This is what it boils down to: I don't preach unconditional tolerance. _You_ and your ideology are one of the conditions that strips that tolerance away. Were you, yourself, a person tolerant of the things one should be tolerant of, this wouldn't be a problem. But you aren't.



> Here's the thing.  I tolerate your position,




My position doesn't require that you tolerate it. The position that I hold won the fight ages ago, and you will deal with it. You don't have a choice, I'm afraid. That's just the world you live in. You can rage against it, but you will deal with it all the same.



> even though I think *excessive* political correctness very silly position to take.




"Acceptable political correctness," here, being anything you are personally comfortable with, and "excessive political correctness," here being anything you are not comfortable with.



> I can understand not calling someone retarded or a retard, but I think saying that calling a handicapped person handicapped is offensive and not politically correct is silly.




Perhaps you should consider asking the handicapped community whether they feel it's silly.



> Handicap is a neutral descriptor of fact.




As was "retard", once. What is and isn't considered "neutral" varies over time. Welcome to human language. It's a cowpath.



> Someone with a disability does have a handicap and overcoming that handicap is great, but it doesn't make the handicap go away.




Do you honestly believe that is a sound argument? Do I need to replace "handicap" with "mental retardation" for you, or can you manage that scenario on your own?



> Where I draw the line is when people like you come to me and demand that I follow your silly views and/or call me big bad wrong for not following those silly views.




No one cares where you draw the line, Maxperson. You have three choices - continue to perpetuate your callous ideology, and be judged poorly for it; reform your ideology into something more compassionate; or stop talking altogether. In the end, you are the one who has to live with the consequences of that choice. You can call our views silly, but that isn't _nearly_ as unflattering as you will be seen by the rest of the world.



> Feel free to be silly.  Call handicapped people physically challenged.  Call people who fall over vertically challenged.  Walk down the street in a chicken suit flapping your arms and clucking for all I care.  Just don't demand, expect or judge me for not being excessive with political correctness.




You have absolutely no control over whether or not people judge you. And I will be clear: *Many of the people who you respect and who have power over you will judge you poorly for your ideology.* You will continue to be judged, just as you undoubtedly have been in the past. If you don't want people to judge your ideology poorly, fix your ideology. It is broken, and lacks a certain requisite level of humanity.



> Only one of the two of us is actually practicing the tolerance that you preach, and it's not you.  I fully support your right to be excessively politically correct.  You don't support my right not to be.




This isn't about "rights", Maxperson. I am not the government. I cannot infringe on any right you are guaranteed. I can judge you, just like the rest of the world can. You have the right to be horrible, and others have the right to point out how horrible you are being. That's the world you live in, and it isn't going to change in the way you want it to change. You can live out the rest of your life in bitter frustration as the world around you shrinks and you find your ugly beliefs tolerated by fewer and fewer people, or you can engage in some serious, deliberate introspection and come out the other side a better, more compassionate person.

Your call.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, no confusion.  That's why I quoted your posts.  I'm using you as an example.
> 
> You seemed to think that your situation at 19 was different.  It isn't.  You acted in ignorance and were corrected by social pressure.   That's great.  There are some in this thread- not necessarily you- who seem to think social pressure is unwarranted or ineffective.  You're a counter to that position.




Ok. I thought you were thinking that I was arguing against social pressure. That makes sense now.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In addition, as I discussed upthread- or was it the other thread?- "One accusation" occasionally gets people tossed from venues for a reason: the venues have hard data collected worldwide via their trade organization IAVM and law enforcement that tells them removing the accused is most often the most efficient and reliable way to keep the peace in their venues/events.




And it is my opinion that just keeping the peace shouldn't be the priority, especially when better options are available.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now, to clarify, larger venues do not necessarily remove you from the premises based on a single accusation.  Some will merely take you to another area within the building- be that just another area or an actual holding cell- and ask you not to interact with your accuser.
> 
> Others- the ones with SERIOUS bankrolls- may well eject you after a single accusation...because they have video evidence that shows or seems to show corroboration.  There are some venues that have you on camera once you get out of a car in their parking areas, and have some powerful facial recognition software to go along with it.
> 
> Some also have undercovers.
> 
> So if you see someone tossed seemingly after just a single accusation of harassment, be aware that the venue's security may be acting upon more evidence than you realize.




And those are reasonable things to do. But these are not "The accusation is the evidence". These are "The accusation gets you put on the radar and they're checking it out for themselves." When they expel, they make sure that it's an offender, not someone who was just accused. 

I generally do assume that if someone is being booted from a place, that there is more to the story than I know - unless the place has a policy of removing the accused on only the basis of an accusation, which is what some people are advocating here.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Nylanfs said:


> No the point was it wasn't refused, one person posted that they thought this was divisive to the community, which I replied they were being too sensitive to the subject. And I'm guessing they then went on a underground campaign to harass and engineer a boycott of ALL of her games last weekend. Which if that is the case  Ellspeth I am sorry that it happened and it is complete crap that it happened. I have stronger words for this, but Morrus's grandmother may not approve.




Nylanfs is correct and I have restated it several times, the game wasn't refused, and was cleared by the event organizers before I posted it because THEY did support it. They are also busy men with lives, jobs, trying to organize an event for a few hundred people, even on line that is work. Nor could I prove early on that this was the case, even now my evidence may not be considered sufficient proof, could just be a coincidence eh? But I didn't want to disrupt the event or "be a drama queen" or "seek attention" during an event when some people I know are sincere and decent and really good gamers put a lot of hard work into. I also needed to step back and see a larger part of the community, hear to what degree these issues were occurring for women. I have only been playing a little over two years, (on stage role playing much longer) and in hat time I have met maybe five women that I could ask, but one is the 70+ year old mom of the GM, NO ONE misbehaves in that group. Whil I am hugely disappointed, some of what I have read here has helped me realize it could be so much worse, and that there are those willing to speak up as needed. Oh and Nylanfs, remeber the complaint when I said there are men who don't WANT women in their games, but you guys wouldn't know because they don't have to say so to have it? Read these threads.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Taneras said:


> Keep in mind that 8% figure came from a poll which had around 60% female response.  I doubt Gen Con's 61,500 attendance was ~37,000.  The high number of female respondents surely skewed the percentages.
> 
> Not trying to diminish, just trying to be accurate.  Still, even assuming a 1% (8 times lower) still lands you in the hundreds.  So the point is still easily made.  I just don't want to over inflate the issue and scare people off.  5k sexual assaults out of 62k is insane.



Thank you the last thingiwant is to get into numbers thing,,,they areway too high. Someone below already tried to take what I thought was a normal turn a phrase to make issue...

But no about 8%ish is a big issue... Physical and sexual assault numbers like that are iirredeemable.Does anyone know how to contact the cons to see how we can help?


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> No one cares where you draw the line, Maxperson. You have three choices - continue to perpetuate your callous ideology, and be judged poorly for it; reform your ideology into something more compassionate; or stop talking altogether. In the end, you are the one who has to live with the consequences of that choice. You can call our views silly, but that isn't _nearly_ as unflattering as you will be seen by the rest of the world.




There is a 4th choice, one that you won't like. Which is to do what you believe you have done, and that is to resist and fight to overcome.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> There is a 4th choice, one that you won't like. Which is to do what you believe you have done, and that is to resist and fight to overcome.




That's the first option I laid out - continue to perpetuate your callous ideology, and be judged poorly for it. You can call it "resistance" and cast it in whatever noble light makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the result, and becoming a crusader for an ugly cause isn't a particularly strong strategic move. It's the equivalent of the difference between Everyone's Racist Uncle, and The Local Klan Chapter.

You're right, though - I'm not particularly fond of that choice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> And it is my opinion that just keeping the peace shouldn't be the priority, especially when better options are available.




For venue managers, peacekeeping is the priority because "better options" don't generally exist.  Their stats tell them:

1) If they remove the accused (only) from the situation or the entire building, guilty or innocent, the situation is most likely ended.  

2) If they remove both accuser and accused, the situation is most likely ended.

3) If they remove the accuser (only), there is a high probability that the accused- if guilty- will continue to cause disruptions.

In other words, in 2/3 of their options, the accused should be removed.

They'd rather not call the cops to sort things out because that disturbs the patrons and- with too many reports- the city might not be too amenable to having your event return.  So they separate those involved- occasionally with an ejection, more rarely with a permaban- and hope they don't actually have to go so far as getting someone arrested.

Arrests are bad for business.




> And those are reasonable things to do. But these are not "The accusation is the evidence". These are "The accusation gets you put on the radar and they're checking it out for themselves." When they expel, they make sure that it's an offender, not someone who was just accused.




Unless you're talking a new stadium or a casino, most venues do not have the time and manpower to quickly resolve issues of guilt.  So, parent-like, they don't often care about _actual_ guilt.  They opt for cessation of outbursts and restoration of peace.

In addition, realize that mere harassment is not usually a crime, so the cops aren't going to get involved anyway.  If called, they will either do nothing- which does not resolve the situation for the venue or the harassed- or they will (surprise) remove the accused from the premises, usually without an arrest.

If you are indeed accused AND innocent, your best option is compliance...AFTER you make a formal complaint so that you can sue the fraudulent accuser.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> That's the first option I laid out - continue to perpetuate your callous ideology, and be judged poorly for it. You can call it "resistance" and cast it in whatever noble light makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the result, and becoming a crusader for an ugly cause isn't a particularly strong strategic move.




You seem so convinced that you have already won that you are openly declaring that everybody already agrees with you and that anybody who doesn't has already been crushed.

The surest way to lose a war is to proclaim that you have already won.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> The surest way to lose a war is to proclaim that you have already won.




I'm quite sure there are a number of far more reliable ways to lose a war.

The nice part is that you don't need to believe me. You're living in the aftermath. This is what it's like. It isn't perfect, yet, or even close. But I'm afraid you can't put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## Obryn

Dannager said:


> great stuff



Only thing you missed was the microphone drop gif. Well said.


----------



## MechaPilot

Elf Witch said:


> I would never bring something like romance or sex in the game with guys I don't know. They can get so weird about it. In one game the male PCs went to a brothel and my lone female PC went to dinner with the town's sheriff and spent the night with him. I had to deal with the entire I didn't know your PC was easy. And they were often suggesting I seduce the guard of the King. It got so tiresome.




Don't forget the other side of the coin.  I've had some DMs drop in love interests for my character.

I think could have had a number of motivations (some good or neutral, and some lecherous):
G/N - They could have been providing a balance to the male PCs going to brothels.
G - They could have legitimately wanted to provide ties that link the PCs more closely to the game world they live in.
L - They could have been expecting me to RP a sexual encounter with that NPC for their amusement.

However, in the years after my harassment experience (i.e. after I learned to not even hint at character sex or romance around men I don't know) I never allowed a character to pursue those romantic relationships.  There was one time where another gamer commented that my character was simply a frigid b**** because she refused the attentions of an NPC who, to be perfectly frank, had been portrayed by the DM as a legitimately kind and decent person (and who I thought my character would have been genuinely interested in).




Elf Witch said:


> And yes I read enough threads on here about how some groups hate romance in the game.
> 
> Luckily my regular group is all for romance if it fits and it is not treated as weird or girly.




Some people don't like romance or sex in their game.  That's perfectly cool.  I think that leaving out romance detracts from the game world because it removes a layer of positive relationships with the game world.  However, I also fully understand people being uncomfortable with it, and I think most people who opt to leave it out do so for comfort purposes and not because romance is "girly."


----------



## damned

Lehrbuch said:


> Certainly, if I was a con-organiser and I was asked to provide a woman's only game, it would be natural for me to check whether this was because women felt the open games were un-safe/toxic. As, of course, if that was the case I would want to do something about it.
> 
> However, the possibility that others (i.e. men) might ask themselves whether or not this special game session says something about how women feel about the community, is no reason to refuse the game session.
> 
> As an academic, I am sometimes involved in organising academic conferences. Even though the conferences are open to all, we frequently have special social events for various groups: "women", "PhD students", "alumini of particular institutions", etc. This doesn't imply that "women", or the other categories are discriminated against in the open events. The special events are just an opportunity for people to meet and socialise and talk with others of similar interests and experiences.
> 
> So, having a woman's only game, should not be any more controversial than having say "a 4E game", or "a game for out-of-town visitors to the con", or "a game for under 18 year olds", or "a game where all the PCs are elves", etc. Providing an opportunity for women to play a game together at a con seems like a truly excellent idea to me.
> 
> In fact, having a woman's only event really paints the opposite picture of the con. A woman's only session is advertising that a) there are enough women attending to make this worthwhile, and b) that the con is thoughtfully providing opportunities for women gamers to meet and play games together.






Lehrbuch said:


> Yes. Which is a ridiculous reason for refusing. A group of women wanted the opportunity to game with other women, and it was refused because it might make other gamers question whether their community was safe for woman.
> 
> If the answer to the question "is this community safe for women?" isn't immediately and transparently "yes", then the problem isn't whatever prompted asking the question.
> 
> There are plenty of other reasons for wanting to have an opportunity to game with only women, and note that there is no suggestion that the individual women concerned wanted to _only_ game with women for the _entire_ con. She reportedly just wanted a table which was only women. Which is perfectly reasonable. Woman are a minority in most areas for gaming. Like for every minority an event like a con should be an opportunity to game with people that you cannot easily normally play with.
> 
> However, the difference with a "man-only" table is that it is hard to see a reasonable justification for a "man-only table", other than for the purposes of excluding an already excluded, and harassed minority. A "woman-only" table simply provides a great opportunity for woman to game together, for whatever reason, which is something difficult for most women to do normally (because they are a minority). A "man-only table" is just another way for the majority to exclude the minority.




Id like to point out that the game in question was not refused - it was unconditionally approved, supported and promoted. I specifically advertised the game through newsletters and social media posts. 

That the game didnt run disappoints me a little. I always want to see games run.

*What really pisses me off is why it didnt run and how the whole experience has damaged the female GM and her friends, how it has left them feeling the complete opposite of included and welcome.*

To me the response was incomprehensible. Not only was the idea rubbished but straw men arguments and logical fallacies were used to imply that the GM said very different things to what she actually did. I had only casual interactions with the GM but had a fair idea of her mindset from our conversations and yet the way I read the post made me think she had messed up and said something stupid. I checked with her first and then went back and searched all the posts I could find to see where the poster may have gotten his impression from. Zilch. Nada. It was a crap response and it has alienated and hurt the female gamers in this community.

People can be arses in person. Online this tends to happen even more often.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> I'm quite sure there are a number of far more reliable ways to lose a war.
> 
> The nice part is that you don't need to believe me. You're living in the aftermath. This is what it's like. It isn't perfect, yet, or even close. But I'm afraid you can't put the genie back in the bottle.




Here's the thing - when the war is over, the fighting is done. Everybody acknowledges that the war is over, including the losers. The winners don't have to try to convince people, "Hey, my side won!" because everybody knows it already.

Especially when you state that the objective is to crush a viewpoint you don't like, which is what you said, in the name of tolerance and compassion, and that people who don't agree have already lost. It reeks of a sad unawareness of what winning really is.

And keep in mind that I didn't take a side in your internet feud with Maxperson; I just find your arrogance sickening, regardless of who is morally right.


----------



## MechaPilot

GMforPowergamers said:


> Thank you the last thingiwant is to get into numbers thing,,,they areway too high. Someone below already tried to take what I thought was a normal turn a phrase to make issue...
> 
> But no about 8%ish is a big issue... Physical and sexual assault numbers like that are iirredeemable.Does anyone know how to contact the cons to see how we can help?




I have never been a con attendee, but I would imagine that most cons have some kind of web page, especially the larger cons, and that you could find contact info on those pages.

Also, someone posted a link in one of the two harassment threads to an organization that at the very least is promoting awareness about the issue.  I'd have to dig it up again, but I think it had the term "consent" in the name.  You might be able to get them to help you come up with a game plan for talking to con representatives.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> Here's the thing - when the war is over, the fighting is done.




Nonsense.

The question of whether black rights or racists' rights would come out on top was settled decades ago. That hasn't put an end to all fighting, just most of it.

You're trying to squeeze reality into a handful of cliched pseudo-quotations because you think it sounds nice.



> And keep in mind that I didn't take a side in your internet feud with Maxperson; I just find your arrogance sickening, regardless of who is morally right.




Well there are two possibilities, here: Either you _actually have taken a side_, as seems almost undeniable given your history here, or you believe my "sickening arrogance" to be more deserving of your attention than correcting an actual moral wrong. I'll let you decide, though.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So, parent-like, they don't often care about _actual_ guilt.  They opt for cessation of outbursts and restoration of peace.




As a parent, and as someone who believes that the truth is always relevant, I separate the children when they are fighting, sending them into different parts of the house. I don't deprive either one of anything until I am certain that wrongdoing has happened and by whom. And if I can't determine who did wrong, I punish neither.

And yes, expelling someone is punishment; you are depriving that person to something that he or she would have if you didn't actively take it away because of a policy that forbids wrongdoing.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you are indeed accused AND innocent, your best option is compliance...AFTER you make a formal complaint so that you can sue the fraudulent accuser.




But what about the venue that took the action?


----------



## Lehrbuch

Jeanneliza said:


> Nylanfs is correct and I have restated it several times, the game wasn't refused, and was cleared by the event organizers before I posted it because THEY did support it...




Apologies to you (Jeanneliza) and the organiser (damned) for getting the story a bit screwed up. 

On the other hand, I am also hugely disappointed that your game ultimately didn't run because of idiots in your community. I hope it doesn't stop you from trying again in the future.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The question of whether black rights or racists' rights would come out on top was settled decades ago. That hasn't put an end to all fighting, just most of it.
> 
> You're trying to squeeze reality into a handful of cliched pseudo-quotations because you think it sounds nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there are two possibilities, here: Either you _actually have taken a side_, as seems almost undeniable given your history here, or you believe my "sickening arrogance" to be more deserving of your attention than correcting an actual moral wrong. I'll let you decide, though.




Actually, it's because your arrogance IS an actual moral wrong. But mostly, it's because you're a worthless a-hole who needs to be called on his BS. You went on the attack against me, trying to figure out what I think, when I stayed civil to you. My civility has come to an end.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> you are depriving that person to something that he or she would have if you didn't actively take it away




I think you're simply going to have to accept that we don't agree with you on this. We don't see something as punishment merely because the person being affected doesn't like it.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> Actually, it's because your arrogance IS an actual moral wrong. But mostly, it's because you're a worthless  who needs to be called on his BS. You went on the attack against me, trying to figure out what I think, when I stayed civil to you. My civility has come to an end.




Please proceed, Governor.


----------



## Fergurg

Dannager said:


> I think you're simply going to have to accept that we don't agree with you on this. We don't see something as punishment merely because the person being affected doesn't like it.




Then all of you are wrong.

I understand that you, Dannager, are mentally disabled enough to believe that you have already won and that "The accusation is the evidence" is already the standard, but your willful stupidity does not affect everybody. As much as you would like it to, it couldn't, or else there'd be too many people still trying to decide what to eat for breakfast yesterday.

Now, for everyone who's IQ is above room temperature (which excludes you, Dannager. Sorry.), if you are taking something away from somebody because of alleged wrongdoing, that is punishment. That is why it is considered punitive in nature. Removing a person innocently accused and removing an accuser who was harassed is the exact same wrong for the exact same reason - it is actively taking something away from somebody that they had, were entitled to have, and only lost it because of wrongdoing that they did not do. Because there are other, better options available, why is that acceptable?


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg said:


> Then all of you are wrong.




Including the multiple people in this thread with backgrounds in law and criminology, presumably.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> As a parent, and as someone who believes that the truth is always relevant, I separate the children when they are fighting, sending them into different parts of the house. I don't deprive either one of anything until I am certain that wrongdoing has happened and by whom. And if I can't determine who did wrong, I punish neither.




As a parent, you have the time and an ongoing relationship with your children- getting down to the actual truth is in your family's best interest.  So first, you separate, then investigate.

As a venue operator, you generally do NOT have time and resources to ascertain truth.  Investigation, while the best option for the persons involved, is usually beyond the scope of your personnel, and possibly beyond the legal powers at their disposal.

So they separate- and possibly eject- unless things are crystal clear.  End of story




> But what about the venue that took the action?




If they (or the police, if they've been called) _intentionally _don't take down the accuser's info- they probably don't have to give it to you there and then due to anti-stalking/witness protection laws, etc.- they're probably in breach of the law.


----------



## Nylanfs

Jeanneliza said:


> Oh and Nylanfs, remeber the complaint when I said there are men who don't WANT women in their games, but you guys wouldn't know because they don't have to say so to have it? Read these threads.




Oh I had seen the behavior here, and at RPGNet, and a few other places and have blocked several people because of their views. I had never seen it in FG, and quite frankly I was shocked that it was. I mean logically since I had seen it at other gamer boards I should have statistically expected it, but I've been active there since 2006 so it was a shock.


----------



## Dannager

Fergurg, I think it might be a good idea for you to take a step back from this thread and reassess. It's clearly bothering you a great deal. You don't have to take my advice, of course, but maybe just consider it briefly.


----------



## ehren37

Jeanneliza said:


> I have never been to a GenCon or gaming Con, I am curious as to what context at a gaming convention the quote would be appropriate and in context?




The most I can think of is the rules for an answer to a Kindergarten Cop quote question in a trivia contest... yeah, I got nothin.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fergung said:
			
		

> if you are taking something away from somebody because of alleged wrongdoing, that is punishment



A victim of sexual assault has something taken away from them. Something much more important and fundamental than a fun con weekend (though that gets taken from them, too, actually). They aren't any more at fault than some hypothetical person unjustly chucked out of a convention. Why are you okay punishing the victims of sexual assault instead of punishing those accused of sexual assault? SOMEONE is going to get punished get something taken away from them - why victims of sexual assault and not people accused of sexual assault? 

In fact, if you're looking to advocate for innocent people to not be punished, you're kind of wasting your time on people unjustly accused of sexual assault at a con. There's not that many of them, and the pain they feel isn't very deep. 

Meanwhile, there's lots of people who get punished that you could find to rally behind if it's an important cause for you. Some of them even get *KILLED* for it. Some get viciously shamed in public. Some are imprisoned for decades. Some get unjustly killed by police. 

Some just get their feeling of safety and security taken away from them.  

Again, there's no solution that causes no suffering. There's only a solution that reduces the incidence of sexual harassment and makes con goers feel safer but might sometimes kick out someone unfairly, and a denial of that solution that keeps perpetrators of sexual violence as active con members but at least doesn't kick anyone out unfairly. 

I can only imagine that those who think getting kicked out of a con is a worse scenario than being sexually harassed have the luxury of being very ignorant of the suffering sexual harassment causes. That ignorance just lets more sexual harassment happen. If that's not acceptable, there's plenty of avenues for education and support out there.


----------



## Fergurg

ehren37 said:


> The most I can think of is the rules for an answer to a Kindergarten Cop quote question in a trivia contest... yeah, I got nothin.




I forgot about that movie! Thanks. I needed some funny memories.


----------



## MechaPilot

GMforPowergamers said:


> Thank you the last thingiwant is to get into numbers thing,,,they areway too high. Someone below already tried to take what I thought was a normal turn a phrase to make issue...
> 
> But no about 8%ish is a big issue... Physical and sexual assault numbers like that are iirredeemable.Does anyone know how to contact the cons to see how we can help?




I found the link to the organization I mentioned: Geeks for CONsent


----------



## Fergurg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As a parent, you have the time and an ongoing relationship with your children- getting down to the actual truth is in your family's best interest.  So first, you separate, then investigate.
> 
> As a venue operator, you generally do NOT have time and resources to ascertain truth.  Investigation, while the best option for the persons involved, is usually beyond the scope of your personnel, and possibly beyond the legal powers at their disposal.
> 
> So they separate- and possibly eject- unless things are crystal clear.  End of story




By all means, separate them. Tell them to stay away from each other. Watch them more closely, watch for patterns of behavior. Document it for the future. But don't do the "whether you did it or not doesn't matter; what matters is that someone said you did, so you have to leave."

One big thing to do is after telling them to stay away from each other, watch both of them very closely to see what they do next. People who are innocently accused, and even people who didn't realize that there was an issue (which is probably more common than you'd think) will avoid the accuser. Likewise, the accuser would want to stay away from the accused anyway. But if one of them is hounding the other, now you have a crystal clear answer of who is right and who is wrong.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannager said:


> Hi, Maxperson. I'm not going to be particularly kind to you, in this post. I'm not going to be overtly rude to you, but I'm not going to be kind to you. I honestly don't have the patience for it (and that's saying a lot). If you require kindness in your discussions, I suggest skipping this post and perhaps this thread. It probably isn't for you.




I don't expect tolerance from you, so I'll continue.



> You are under the mistaken belief that I advocate unconditional tolerance.




Yep.  Your way is the one true way and any other way is big bad wrong, even when it's not.



> No one advocates unconditional tolerance, because unconditional tolerance _*is a bad thing.*_ You know this, of course - you just haven't connected the dots. It's the reason almost no one tolerates slavers, rapists, and other people who are unrepentant in their abuses. Again: no one advocates the unconditional tolerance you seem to think I advocate.




That's what *excessive* political correctness is.  Unconditional tolerance.......of what they think should be tolerated, anyway.  Their feelings matter and the rest of us should kow tow to them, and if we don't, then we're the bad guys and our feelings are irrelevant.  



> What people _*do*_ advocate is _compassionate tolerance_, especially of the things that people have no control over, or that they have no moral imperative whatsoever to change. Gender. Sexuality. Race. Ableness. These things (and more!) should be tolerated and embraced.




A reasonable level of that is good.  The excessive amounts that pervade society these days is not. 



> _Ideology_, though? Ideology should only be tolerated when the ideology is neutral, at worst, and ideally only when it is positive.




Not allowing excessive tolerance to wreck things is positive, so what I believe is positive.



> You have a certain ideology, Maxperson. I'm not a fan of it. I'm not a fan because your ideology suggests that individuals do not have a moral imperative to be considerate in their speech and their actions. Your ideology is not one of compassionate tolerance. Your ideology is callous, and that's describing it _charitably. _




Eh, no.  You're flat out wrong.  My ideology is reasonable compassion and consideration.  Yours suggests unreasonable compassion and consideration. 



> That's right. I don't tolerate your ideology. For the same reason that I don't tolerate any other form of toxic bigotry. And I'm not the only one here who shares that view. Now, it may be that your personal set of beliefs doesn't rise to the revolting level that overt racism, for example, might. I can't say. What I _can_ say is that tolerating or accepting you and the ideology you profess here _would be morally wrong of me._ It would make the world a worse place, if I tolerated what you believe. I do not tolerate your ideology, because your ideology _harms._




LOL  Equating reasonable tolerance with bigotry.  How.........fallacy of you.  You have just shown that you have no freaking clue what my ideology is.  You should just stop now.



> This is what it boils down to: I don't preach unconditional tolerance. _You_ and your ideology are one of the conditions that strips that tolerance away. Were you, yourself, a person tolerant of the things one should be tolerant of, this wouldn't be a problem. But you aren't.




Sorry, but tolerance does not strip tolerance away.  It can't, so you are flat out wrong.  You also have no right, moral or otherwise, to tell me what I should or should not be tolerant of.  You can set an example you think I should follow, but your moral high ground is washed away the moment you try to force your views on others.



> My position doesn't require that you tolerate it. The position that I hold won the fight ages ago, and you will deal with it. You don't have a choice, I'm afraid. That's just the world you live in. You can rage against it, but you will deal with it all the same.




Eh, no.  You haven't won the fight at all.  There are millions of Americans who don't hold with the excessively bad portions of political correctness.  I metaphorically spit in the face of everyone who tries to force that BS down my throat, in person and on the internet, as do many, many others.  You don't get to be right just because you currently have higher numbers.  



> "Acceptable political correctness," here, being anything you are personally comfortable with, and "excessive political correctness," here being anything you are not comfortable with.




It has nothing to do with comfort and everything to do with what I see as excessively stupid.  One thing *I* don't tolerate is stupidity.  College students whining about micro-aggressions and such is right along that alley.  



> Perhaps you should consider asking the handicapped community whether they feel it's silly.




Why?  They've decided to be offended by it even though no offense was meant by it, AND it being factually and neutrally accurate.  Just because someone decides to be offended by something, does not automatically entitle them to compassion over it.  Someone who gets offended because I eat apple pie can kiss my behind.  I'm not going to stop eating it or feel bad that they are offended.  Someone who is offended because someone uses a racial slur would absolutely have my compassion.  Reasonable is reasonable.



> No one cares where you draw the line, Maxperson. You have three choices - continue to perpetuate your callous ideology, and be judged poorly for it; reform your ideology into something more compassionate; or stop talking altogether. In the end, you are the one who has to live with the consequences of that choice. You can call our views silly, but that isn't _nearly_ as unflattering as you will be seen by the rest of the world.




My ideology is no more callous than yours is.  It never will be and you can complain about it to your hearts content and you will never be right about that.  

I read an article once about two burglers who broke into a place in England and stole stuff.  They got caught.  The young teenager for whom it was a first offense got multiple years in prison.  The mid-late 20's man for whom this was a third or fourth offense was let go with only probation.  Why was he let go while the other one did years in prison?  Because he had a phobia of dirty places and it would have been "inhumane" to put him in prison.  That's the sort of thing that your philosophy of excessive political correctness and excessive compassion breeds.  



> You have absolutely no control over whether or not people judge you. And I will be clear: *Many of the people who you respect and who have power over you will judge you poorly for your ideology.* You will continue to be judged, just as you undoubtedly have been in the past. If you don't want people to judge your ideology poorly, fix your ideology. It is broken, and lacks a certain requisite level of humanity.




True.  I have no control over it, but people who do it are big bad wrong.



> This isn't about "rights", Maxperson. I am not the government. I cannot infringe on any right you are guaranteed. I can judge you, just like the rest of the world can. You have the right to be horrible, and others have the right to point out how horrible you are being. That's the world you live in, and it isn't going to change in the way you want it to change. You can live out the rest of your life in bitter frustration as the world around you shrinks and you find your ugly beliefs tolerated by fewer and fewer people, or you can engage in some serious, deliberate introspection and come out the other side a better, more compassionate person.




People can infringe on others rights.  It happens all the time.  You're very mistaken if you think only the government can do that.  Then again, you've been mistaken this entire post, so what's one more time.


----------



## Dannager

Maxperson said:


> It has nothing to do with comfort and everything to do with what I see as excessively stupid.  One thing *I* don't tolerate is stupidity.  College students whining about micro-aggressions and such is right along that alley.




I don't really feel like I need to comment on any of that. I just want the above quote to appear twice in this thread. It's just a _perfect_ illustration.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> Gen Con Attendance 61,423 in 2015 if 8% were assaulted that is 5,000 people...(4,914.8) what can we do to bring that down to a double digit number this year and a 0 next...




No.  It was nowhere near 5000 people.  First you have to figure out what percentage of that 61k were women.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannager said:


> I don't really feel like I need to comment on any of that. I just want the above quote to appear twice in this thread. It's just a _perfect_ illustration.




Absolutely right.  It is a perfect example of how bad this country has become due to excessive political correctness.  And of course you won't respond to the rest.  You really can't.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True.  But gamers shouldn't get a free pass on the issue, either.  We have to look into the mirror just like everyone else and decide which kind of person we are- tolerant or intolerant of such public behavior in our events and venues?




Of course.  I'm not suggesting gamers get a pass. I just don't agree with the idea that it's somehow gamer centric, which is what that articles suggest.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Ken Burnside's article on Medium, *"For Good Men To See Nothing"*, goes a long ways towards illustrating the isolation a woman can feel while at a convention or game store, describes the behavior and thought processes of men who actively harass women, and gives solid, actionable advice on what gamers can do to help women suffering from harassment, as well as ways to identify their harassers and preempt the behavior.


----------



## Zarithar

I was recently at a convention where the DM simply would not stop making various pedophile jokes, even when it became obvious that it was not funny to some at the table... myself included. This was followed by a barrage of "furry" jokes at the expense of the moon circle druid. This was an Adventurer's League DM mind you. The teenagers at the table seemed more mature. 

I know this isn't precisely related to the topic, but it was annoying to say the least. Edit to add my 2 cents on the original topic though. I've been in groups where female players were every bit as raunchy as the men and cursed and discussed various body parts with equal gusto. Personally its not my style, I enjoy a little more gravitas, but I just wanted to point out that in my experience the various sex jokes and even the racism that comes up from time to time is perpetrated by both men and women.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fergurg said:


> By all means, separate them. Tell them to stay away from each other. Watch them more closely, watch for patterns of behavior. Document it for the future. But don't do the "whether you did it or not doesn't matter; what matters is that someone said you did, so you have to leave."
> 
> One big thing to do is after telling them to stay away from each other, watch both of them very closely to see what they do next. People who are innocently accused, and even people who didn't realize that there was an issue (which is probably more common than you'd think) will avoid the accuser. Likewise, the accuser would want to stay away from the accused anyway. But if one of them is hounding the other, now you have a crystal clear answer of who is right and who is wrong.




Here's the thing: what is happening is a small injustice to fend off/end a greater one.  It is a pragmatic and utilitarian ethos being applied.  What you say you want is great and fair, but it is horribly impractical.

Not every venue or event can easily separate or investigate people.  A game store running an event doesn't have many options when a guy is accused of grabbing an uninvited, unwelcome quick feel.  A store with one guy on shift isn't going to be an effective sexual harassment investigator while also selling MtG, keeping an eye out for shoplifters, answering phones, restocking shelves, etc.

Most venues do not have ways to compartmentalize.  Convention centers, hotels, ballrooms, etc. don't have places to put those accused of misbehavior besides some administrator's office.  And then you need to have someone babysit them.  That's going to raise all kinds of issues of cost, safety, and legality.  Much easier to eject someone.  Safer, too: someone wrongfully ejected _might_ sue you for the ticket price and infliction of emotional distress.  Depending on jurisdiction, someone wrongfully detained could sue for unjust imprisonment.  And if the babysitter is untrained & unsupervised, they're every bit as open to allegations of harassment as the person they're guarding.

Many popular events are too highly populated to simply continue devoting manpower observing a handful of people out of several thousand who have had a bad interaction.  Removal of at least one party is the best option, and removal of the accused is the option with the securest legal footing.

When the police are called out to a residence for an allegation of domestic battery, in most US jurisdictions, _at least _one person will be removed from the premises*, with only a preliminary investigation, and no legally binding assessment of guilt- that comes later, if at all.

Why?

Because it is effective at reducing repetition of the behavior complained about, and allows for the rapid redeployment of security/police to renew crime prevention duties.







* some jurisdictions still insist on there being charges being pressed by one of the individuals involved in the altercation, but that number is decreasing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Of course.  I'm not suggesting gamers get a pass. I just don't agree with the idea that it's somehow gamer centric, which is what that articles suggest.




I don't think the articles suggested it was gamer centric.  I think the articles suggested that the hobby isn't a garden of Eden, and we have to admit to the existence of the miscreants among us, and take action to combat their negative effects on the hobbies.


----------



## Elf Witch

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> I am almost 30... I have been gaming since I was 8, my first Con was a local one at the age of 13 and I hate to say it but I know almost no woman who go to cons and stores and play that don't have at least 1 story...
> 
> Not one of my woman friends that aren't gamers can say they don't have at least a 'feel uncomforable' story so I don't want to make it sound like it is just gamers.
> 
> How ever I would kill for the next little girl who wants to play D&D comes here and say "Never happened to me..."




I am 58 and have been dealing with this for a long time and I am exhausted. Everyone of my gaming friends who are female and who are gay have stories. My roommate is DMing right now and a young friend of mine who I met through pagan activities wanted to know how to play so she joined her group. I was hoping she never had to experience what we have. But when she went to a local game store to buy her first dice she was initiatied into the club.  She  had brought  her mom and her baby son with her. He started fussing and she was rocking him and some stupid guy thought it would be funny to say to her "hey if you are going to give him a drink can I have one too"  Now her mom let into him and told him off and he sort of slinked away. The mom told the person behind the register and he said he would talk to the guy and let him know that was not tolerated at the store.

And while I think it is great that the store employee said what he said I still think it is bad she had to experience her first trip to a game store and have to deal with a jerk. 


MechaPilot said:


> Don't forget the other side of the coin.  I've had some DMs drop in love interests for my character.
> 
> I think could have had a number of motivations (some good or neutral, and some lecherous):
> G/N - They could have been providing a balance to the male PCs going to brothels.
> G - They could have legitimately wanted to provide ties that link the PCs more closely to the game world they live in.
> L - They could have been expecting me to RP a sexual encounter with that NPC for their amusement.
> 
> However, in the years after my harassment experience (i.e. after I learned to not even hint at character sex or romance around men I don't know) I never allowed a character to pursue those romantic relationships.  There was one time where another gamer commented that my character was simply a frigid b**** because she refused the attentions of an NPC who, to be perfectly frank, had been portrayed by the DM as a legitimately kind and decent person (and who I thought my character would have been genuinely interested in).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people don't like romance or sex in their game.  That's perfectly cool.  I think that leaving out romance detracts from the game world because it removes a layer of positive relationships with the game world.  However, I also fully understand people being uncomfortable with it, and I think most people who opt to leave it out do so for comfort purposes and not because romance is "girly."




I have had DMs drop a romantic interest in I am usually okay with that if it not creepy what I hate is the ones that try and force a pregnancy on my PC.  

I was playing a bard and I wanted to the feat Nymph's Kiss to have it you have to take it at creation and been involved with a Nymph. So I made my PC bisexual. One of the guys at the table would bring up all the time of either having a threesome or letting him watch. He did this in character so after discussing it with the DM he allowed me to handle it in game so I told him I was tired of it and that he had better be careful in combat because I was not going to heal him any more if he kept it up. He didn't stop and his PC almost died because I wouldn't heal him and he had to gain back his hit points the hard way with rest he took me seriously. 





Zarithar said:


> I was recently at a convention where the DM simply would not stop making various pedophile jokes, even when it became obvious that it was not funny to some at the table... myself included. This was followed by a barrage of "furry" jokes at the expense of the moon circle druid. This was an Adventurer's League DM mind you. The teenagers at the table seemed more mature.
> 
> I know this isn't precisely related to the topic, but it was annoying to say the least. Edit to add my 2 cents on the original topic though. I've been in groups where female players were every bit as raunchy as the men and cursed and discussed various body parts with equal gusto. Personally its not my style, I enjoy a little more gravitas, but I just wanted to point out that in my experience the various sex jokes and even the racism that comes up from time to time is perpetrated by both men and women.




There is no doubt women can be just as raunchy as men.  And women can be just as racist as any man. And women doing it and causing trouble should not get a pass just because they are women. What I have never understood is why people continue to do something that is annoying other people. Why keep making jokes that people are not laughing at or when asked to stop. If a player says I find this uncomfortable please stop why keep it going.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> What I have never understood is why people continue to do something that is annoying other people.




1) some people think they're funnier than they are.

2) some people are extremely bad at reading the reactions of others. 

3) some people enjoy annoying other people.

...and 1 & 2 often overlap.


----------



## Caliburn101

I posted on my position on this on the other thread about harassment.

I then read through this one.

Whilst many of the same valid points are being made, there is a very childish and self-aggrandising set of mini-feuds being played out here with all kinds of insults thrown in for 'good' measure.

I would like to see this thread closed and one far better moderated started.

To those involved in personally motivated mud-slinging at each other - either post on the _subject_ or don't bother posting. One of the reasons this kind of discussion doesn't achieve what it deserves to is the inevitable egocentricity of those who think it's an excuse for very poor behaviour.

Stop insulting each other and grow up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jester Canuck said:


> The "white terrorist" label is pretty much hyperbole, associating harassment with such an emotionally loaded term as "terrorist".
> Which is likely the point: by applying the definition of the term terrorist to abusers it's meant to get us to really _think_ about the behaviour and the people who do it. It's not an inaccurate usage of the term and makes us wonder how it can be ignored, let alone condoned.



Is that the point? Does that really work? Or do you just appear as having an unreasonable opinion or attacking the reader/listener, which prompts him into self-defense mode, instead of introspection? Or what if their introspection reveals that they have never harassed a woman, or seen it happening, because they don't just play with any as*hole, but with decent people?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

One thing about the 8% number: it is too high, no disputing.  But I think we're a bit off on the number of attendees it represents.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was 8% of all female attendees who reported misconduct, correct?

If so, was it genuinely a 50/50 split, or was the Con's attendance typical of our hobby as a whole- 70%+ male?

That still has us talking about an intolerably large bunch of victims, but not 5000.


----------



## Morrus

Fergurg said:


> I understand that you, Dannager, are mentally disabled enough to believe that you have already won






Fergurg said:


> Actually, it's because your arrogance IS an actual moral wrong. But mostly, it's because you're a worthless a-hole who needs to be called on his BS. You went on the attack against me, trying to figure out what I think, when I stayed civil to you. My civility has come to an end.




So has your time in this thread. Take a few days off the forums; and if you decide to return, do not post in this thread again. Namecalling is not acceptable.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I'm A Banana said:


> A victim of sexual assault has something taken away from them. Something much more important and fundamental than a fun con weekend (though that gets taken from them, too, actually). They aren't any more at fault than some hypothetical person unjustly chucked out of a convention. Why are you okay punishing the victims of sexual assault instead of punishing those accused of sexual assault? SOMEONE is going to get punished get something taken away from them - why victims of sexual assault and not people accused of sexual assault?
> 
> In fact, if you're looking to advocate for innocent people to not be punished, you're kind of wasting your time on people unjustly accused of sexual assault at a con. There's not that many of them, and the pain they feel isn't very deep.
> 
> Meanwhile, there's lots of people who get punished that you could find to rally behind if it's an important cause for you. Some of them even get *KILLED* for it. Some get viciously shamed in public. Some are imprisoned for decades. Some get unjustly killed by police.
> 
> Some just get their feeling of safety and security taken away from them.
> 
> Again, there's no solution that causes no suffering. There's only a solution that reduces the incidence of sexual harassment and makes con goers feel safer but might sometimes kick out someone unfairly, and a denial of that solution that keeps perpetrators of sexual violence as active con members but at least doesn't kick anyone out unfairly.
> 
> I can only imagine that those who think getting kicked out of a con is a worse scenario than being sexually harassed have the luxury of being very ignorant of the suffering sexual harassment causes. That ignorance just lets more sexual harassment happen. If that's not acceptable, there's plenty of avenues for education and support out there.





Again with assault, has anyone said that if someone assaults someone you shouldn't kick them out...if so I hsventseen it. Infect I have been advocating for about 10 pages now that we should focus alto more on stopping assault. Do you know what isntassualt... "He said something I didn't like" or "He said so ethic that anyone else would be fine but his voice inclination. Made it sound bad"


8% of con goers more or less are assaulted sexually. Throwing someone out for making a bad joke or having bad social skills will do NOTHING to stopthat...throwing out ghereal problems, like the rapist and assualtet will. So even forgetting my worry about losing my vacation and my years savings, I want to ficys on ACTUALLYSAFTY...

Words can upset you, words can be cruel. WORDS ARE NOT AS BAD AS PHYSICALSEXUAL ASSUSLT,  if the 8% number umbia gave isinflated by half(and we have noreason to believe it is) then about 2500 so ual assaults happened at gen con last year. Instead of arguing PC or words or hurt feelings we needtomake sure that 2,000+ people aren't aassaulted.Its 4 days that means 500 people. A day at the con on the low end, 1000 a day if the number isn't inflated...

I can not believe me having a social problem isanywhere near that scale... This isn't do you feel bad stuff this is 500-1000 sexual assaults a day at a con for fun.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing about the 8% number: it is too high, no disputing.  But I think we're a bit off on the number of attendees it represents.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it was 8% of all female attendees who reported misconduct, correct?
> 
> If so, was it genuinely a 50/50 split, or was the Con's attendance typical of our hobby as a whole- 70%+ male?
> 
> That still has us talking about an intolerably large bunch of victims, but not 5000.



Again even if it is inflated by half it is 500 assaults per day... I would think it unmanagbly high at 20% of that number (100 a day)


----------



## Neonchameleon

Maxperson said:


> Of course. I'm not suggesting gamers get a pass. I just don't agree with the idea that it's somehow gamer centric, which is what that articles suggest.




It's not gamer-centric. It is however _a problem in the tabletop gaming community._ Possibly moreso, possibly less so than some other communities. Those other communities? Not that relevant on ENWorld. The tabletop gaming community? Is. And is somewhere where we can and should do something about it - and somewhere where we have more leverage than other communities that may be worse.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

To put this in perspective I want to ask how many of you thought like me...

If 1 week ago someone asked me "how many sexual assaults and how many rapes do you think happen at gen con"

My answer would have been less then that 500 but mine wouldn't be by d's I would assume since 2000 when I started going there would be less then 500 total... And I would have said 0 rapes...be use that was something that I would have heard...maybe at some point in the past they had something as bad as rape, but that would have to have been long ago...

Today 500-1000 a a day assaults some are rapes... 

The con ist really 24hr but it opens early and runs late...so let's say 20hrs. 500 a day means about 25 an hour... Or about 1 every 2.25 minutes...

How long does it take to run a combat round at a 7-10 person table...how many people were sexually assaulted while we had 1 round vs some orcs


----------



## Jeanneliza

Two things need clarifying here. One is the idea that assault has a physical component, it does not, not under the law. Assault is merely taking an action that would cause a reasonable fear of immediate or near immediate harm to the person it is directed at. If I wave a stick at you in a threatening manner, if I voice a threat that you have reasonable belief I can and will carry out, if I point a gun at you, those are assault. Then you have battery. Battery is the physical action where contact is made with the victim, i.e, hitting, groping, etc are battery. You can have either one without the other, but they often go together which is why you often hear the charge assault AND Battery. If I sneak up behind you and bash you over the head with a chair and you never saw it coming, no fear was created, therefore it is simple battery.
Those arguing that assault is different than verbal harassment are wrong, Harassment is a specific form of assault, sexual harassment even more specific. Groping is a specific form of battery, so is rape. You cannot say you want to eliminate sexual assault, but words shouldn't be the bar, They are exactly the legal bar in fact. Creating fear is assault. If you whisper to me you are going to back me in a corner and do horrible things to me you HAVE committed assault. If you put your hands on me under the table without saying a thing and no forewarning you have committed battery.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing about the 8% number: it is too high, no disputing.  But I think we're a bit off on the number of attendees it represents.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it was 8% of all female attendees who reported misconduct, correct?
> 
> If so, was it genuinely a 50/50 split, or was the Con's attendance typical of our hobby as a whole- 70%+ male?
> 
> That still has us talking about an intolerably large bunch of victims, but not 5000.




There have been waaaaaay too many posts here for me to read them all.  Where is this 8% figure coming from?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jeanneliza said:


> Two things need clarifying here. One is the idea that assault has a physical component, it does not, not under the law. Assault is merely taking an action that would cause a reasonable fear of immediate or near immediate harm to the person it is directed at. If I wave a stick at you in a threatening manner, if I voice a threat that you have reasonable belief I can and will carry out, if I point a gun at you, those are assault. Then you have battery. Battery is the physical action where contact is made with the victim, i.e, hitting, groping, etc are battery. You can have either one without the other, but they often go together which is why you often hear the charge assault AND Battery. If I sneak up behind you and bash you over the head with a chair and you never saw it coming, no fear was created, therefore it is simple battery.
> Those arguing that assault is different than verbal harassment are wrong, Harassment is a specific form of assault, sexual harassment even more specific. Groping is a specific form of battery, so is rape. You cannot say you want to eliminate sexual assault, but words shouldn't be the bar, They are exactly the legal bar in fact. Creating fear is assault. If you whisper to me you are going to back me in a corner and do horrible things to me you HAVE committed assault. If you put your hands on me under the table without saying a thing and no forewarning you have committed battery.



Assault is a threat or an attack the part I am Saying to skip isn't "I'm going to rape you" it's the bad joke the dirt limrik and the damn social mid understanding all the things people earlier said would fit 0 tolerance....

If someone wears a short that says something like"God made Aden and eve not Adam and stece" that is not assault if someone were says "I don't like trans people" that isn't assault... Assualt is a threat of violence and violence and it happens 500 times or more a day at cons...don't try to water this down.  Assualt is a crime that we need to stop or at least make almost non exstiant at gameing con. 0 rapes at gen com needs tri be the goal.


People talk about safe spaces were no one can voice an outside opion...I want a safe space where all opiins and thoughts can be shared with 0 violence or threats of violence... We need to make it way more public how many acctual assaults (violence or threat of violence) are made at cons


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> There have been waaaaaay too many posts here for me to read them all.  Where is this 8% figure coming from?




Umbru a really great guy and I think a mod found a study about comic con and connected it to gen com in scope.. It scared the you know what out of me and I've been banging this drum for a few hours now... Even if we say the number is inflated and we are better than comic fans I sued 4-8%...and it came out was 500-1000 assaults per day at gen con


----------



## damned

Caliburn101 said:


> Whilst many of the same valid points are being made, there is a very childish and self-aggrandising set of mini-feuds being played out here with all kinds of insults thrown in for 'good' measure.
> 
> I would like to see this thread closed and one far better moderated started.
> 
> To those involved in personally motivated mud-slinging at each other - either post on the _subject_ or don't bother posting. One of the reasons this kind of discussion doesn't achieve what it deserves to is the inevitable egocentricity of those who think it's an excuse for very poor behaviour.




I honestly think that derailing the main thread and starting side shows is exactly what some people want to have happen exactly because it prevents the main thread from achieving what it hopes to.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> Umbru a really great guy and I think a mod found a study about comic con and connected it to gen com in scope.. It scared the you know what out of me and I've been banging this drum for a few hours now... Even if we say the number is inflated and we are better than comic fans I sued 4-8%...and it came out was 500-1000 assaults per day at gen con




Is there a link?  It seems to me if there were 500-1000 assaults/rapes a day at comic con, it would have made National or even world news.  The assault rate for the entire city of Los Angeles, including slums, gangs and such is only 20 a day per 100,000 people.  The rape rate is 2 a day per 100,000.  For assault rates convention to be 25,000%-50,000% higher than one of the highest crime rate cities is unbelievable.


----------



## Jeanneliza

GMforPowergamers said:


> Assault is a threat or an attack the part I am Saying to skip isn't "I'm going to rape you" it's the bad joke the dirt limrik and the damn social mid understanding all the things people earlier said would fit 0 tolerance....
> 
> If someone wears a short that says something like"God made Aden and eve not Adam and stece" that is not assault if someone were says "I don't like trans people" that isn't assault... Assualt is a threat of violence and violence and it happens 500 times or more a day at cons...don't try to water this down.  Assualt is a crime that we need to stop or at least make almost non exstiant at gameing con. 0 rapes at gen com needs tri be the goal.
> 
> 
> People talk about safe spaces were no one can voice an outside opion...I want a safe space where all opiins and thoughts can be shared with 0 violence or threats of violence... We need to make it way more public how many acctual assaults (violence or threat of violence) are made at cons




I did nothing but clarify legal definitions. I never suggested wearing an offensive t-shirt alone constitutes assault, nor did I mention inappropriate jokes. Now if I were a black person and you showed up in my presence wearing the white hood of the KKK that could reasonably be construed as assault.  Asszult is merely taking an action or words that creates the fear of harm in a reasonable person.
The t-shirt and jokes issue are not in fact criminal matters, they are more likely civil ones. Yes a private venue does have the RIGHT to limit the kind of speech or clothing worn in their venues. If they lower the bar on speech to eliminate anything that offends or makes others uncomfortable that is their RIGHT. If they do so because they believe limiting peoples ability to offend others is good for business, that is their RIGHT. Free speech is not an unlimited right, the USSC as found for legal limitations, slander and libel, incitement to violence, pornography beyond the standards of the community, and PRIVATE venues, non are protected under the Constitution.
A Black Baptist church does not HAVE to allow KKK members preaching hate on their premises, and Con organizers do not HAVE to allow clothing or comments that make people uncomformtable. Pretty simple really.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> Is there a link?  It seems to me if there were 500-1000 assaults/rapes a day at comic con, it would have made National or even world news.  The assault rate for the entire city of Los Angeles, including slums, gangs and such is only 20 a day per 100,000 people.  The rape rate is 2 a day per 100,000.  For assault rates convention to be 25,000%-50,000% higher than one of the highest crime rate cities is unbelievable.




I don't have the link like you said this is a huge thread to look through. It suprised me the numbers too that is why I keep reposting them and I even asked above if anyone like me thought it was crazy high.  I do trust that even if they are not exactly r ight someone like Umbrian would not post purposfully miss leading info I have had more then a few discussions with him (some I agree with him others not so much) but he has always been honest inteligent and a pretty straight shooter. 

You also raise a point about the news why isn't this on the news more...should we all right CNN and FOX and our local stations to do a peice on the extreme number of young women who are raped at comic con and gen con? 

I mean I would have assumed that the number of sex assaults at gen com would be less then 500 in its 50 years total learning it is closer to that many a day scared the you know what out of me


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jeanneliza said:


> I did nothing but clarify legal definitions. I never suggested wearing an offensive t-shirt alone constitutes assault, nor did I mention inappropriate jokes. Now if I were a black person and you showed up in my presence wearing the white hood of the KKK that could reasonably be construed as assault.  Asszult is merely taking an action or words that creates the fear of harm in a reasonable person.
> The t-shirt and jokes issue are not in fact criminal matters, they are more likely civil ones. Yes a private venue does have the RIGHT to limit the kind of speech or clothing worn in their venues. If they lower the bar on speech to eliminate anything that offends or makes others uncomfortable that is their RIGHT. If they do so because they believe limiting peoples ability to offend others is good for business, that is their RIGHT. Free speech is not an unlimited right, the USSC as found for legal limitations, slander and libel, incitement to violence, pornography beyond the standards of the community, and PRIVATE venues, non are protected under the Constitution.
> A Black Baptist church does not HAVE to allow KKK members preaching hate on their premises, and Con organizers do not HAVE to allow clothing or comments that make people uncomformtable. Pretty simple really.




And again as long as 500 women a day (aprox) are being assaulted at gen con I don't see why we need to worry about tee shirts jokes or free speach all of that pales next to 500 assualta a day


Edit to try to clairafy so I don't get us derailed again: earlier we were argueing 0 tolerance and marking the con safer by not letting people say things that was not directed at you but a clirfy what I meant by putting aside speech. Yes threats of violence (assault as you defined it) needs to be stoped too. I am agreeing now that we need to raise the level of security I just think we. Need to start with 8% assualts


----------



## Taneras

Maxperson said:


> Is there a link?  It seems to me if there were 500-1000 assaults/rapes a day at comic con, it would have made National or even world news.  The assault rate for the entire city of Los Angeles, including slums, gangs and such is only 20 a day per 100,000 people.  The rape rate is 2 a day per 100,000.  For assault rates convention to be 25,000%-50,000% higher than one of the highest crime rate cities is unbelievable.




I agree.  I think even with adjusting the 8% down to account for how many females are there you're still left with a number so high that it'd be a much better known problem - both by convention staff and by our community.

Something else that could modify the number of people being assaulted at gaming conventions.  Was the poll in question asking about a specific gaming convention or was it asking about people's complete experiences at gaming conventions - which would obviously, for many people, account for multiple conventions.

If its the latter, then obviously not all of the people who've will be sexually assaulted at gaming conventions will all get assaulted at the *same* gaming convention.  Some will inevitably not get harassed/assaulted at a specific gaming convention but could get harassed at one or more in the future or has been at one or more in the past.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't have the link like you said this is a huge thread to look through. It suprised me the numbers too that is why I keep reposting them and I even asked above if anyone like me thought it was crazy high.  I do trust that even if they are not exactly r ight someone like Umbrian would not post purposfully miss leading info I have had more then a few discussions with him (some I agree with him others not so much) but he has always been honest inteligent and a pretty straight shooter.
> 
> You also raise a point about the news why isn't this on the news more...should we all right CNN and FOX and our local stations to do a peice on the extreme number of young women who are raped at comic con and gen con?
> 
> I mean I would have assumed that the number of sex assaults at gen com would be less then 500 in its 50 years total learning it is closer to that many a day scared the you know what out of me




I find the number of assaults at a convention like that to be wholly unbelievable.  There's no way that a bunch of gamers are that much worse than gang members, pimps, slums, and so on.

I don't think Umbran would knowingly post misleading info, but that doesn't mean that the study he's talking about is correct.


----------



## Maxperson

Taneras said:


> I agree.  I think even with adjusting the 8% down to account for how many females are there you're still left with a number so high that it'd be a much better known problem - both by convention staff and by our community.
> 
> Something else that could modify the number of people being assaulted at gaming conventions.  Was the poll in question asking about a specific gaming convention or was it asking about people's complete experiences at gaming conventions - which would obviously, for many people, account for multiple conventions.
> 
> If its the latter, then obviously not all of the people who've will be sexually assaulted at gaming conventions will all get assaulted at the *same* gaming convention.  Some will inevitably not get harassed/assaulted at a specific gaming convention but could get harassed at one or more in the future or has been at one or more in the past.




Yeah.  Maybe the 8% number was the number who have ever been assaulted in their lives at any game convention.  That would make more sense and drive the number at any given convention down to more normal crime levels.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> I find the number of assaults at a convention like that to be wholly unbelievable.  There's no way that a bunch of gamers are that much worse than gang members, pimps, slums, and so on.
> 
> I don't think Umbran would knowingly post misleading info, but that doesn't mean that the study he's talking about is correct.




I have been Useing half that number... 4% instead of 8 just to give margin for error... At 4% it is still 500 a day. Of it was 500 per year it would be staggering...that is 1% this needs addressing there should be 0 rapes and less then 10 sexual assaults at the cons...not 500 a day


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> Its the cops job to find out who did it they can't all be as inept as my local ones...




Dude, this isn't a TV police procedural with labs that get you definitive answers in an hour, and Sherlock Holmes doesn't actually exist.  If you reach over and grab a woman, you very probably don't leave any physical evidence they can use.  Lacking physical evidence or a recording of the act, it becomes "he said, she said", which goes nowhere fast.

And, again, you're now requiring the victim to support a court case that's going to happen a thousand miles away from where they live months after the convention.  

Moreover, there comes a point where trying to divest ourselves of responsibility to act becomes ethically questionable.


----------



## damned

GMforPowergamers said:


> And again as long as 500 women a day (aprox) are being assaulted at gen con I don't see why we need to worry about tee shirts jokes or free speach all of that pales next to 500 assualta a day
> 
> 
> Edit to try to clairafy so I don't get us derailed again: earlier we were argueing 0 tolerance and marking the con safer by not letting people say things that was not directed at you but a clirfy what I meant by putting aside speech. Yes threats of violence (assault as you defined it) needs to be stoped too. I am agreeing now that we need to raise the level of security I just think we. Need to start with 8% assualts




yeah lets do that. lets do that because it means you and i dont have to do jack. it means i dont have to do the uncomfortable stuff like asking the bloke beside me his comments or roleplaying is unacceptable, it means i dont have to reach out to a complete stranger and make sure she is ok, and I dont have to be the spoil sport who tells the joker at the table that he is not funny but is crude and offensive.

thats a cop out from where im standing. the behaviour is undesirable and it makes others feel unsafe. we can be men in lots of different ways - standing up for others who dont have the voice or the power to do it themselves is a perfect start. and if you dont do it at least support the person that does and side with them straight away. dont wait to see if they cop any flack first.


----------



## Taneras

Jeanneliza said:


> I did nothing but clarify legal definitions. I never suggested wearing an offensive t-shirt alone constitutes assault, nor did I mention inappropriate jokes. Now if I were a black person and you showed up in my presence wearing the white hood of the KKK that could reasonably be construed as assault. Asszult is merely taking an action or words that creates the fear of harm in a reasonable person.




An assault needs to be a threat coupled with an apparent and present ability to carry out that specific threat.

Just wearing a KKK white garb isn't enough to fit that bill, just as carrying a confederate flag above your head or having it on a T-shirt doesn't fit that bill.  I'm not going to post pictures of recent KKK demonstrations (rallies, protests, marches, etc) but some of their members are bold enough to wear the KKK white garb in public and the police don't bother them.  Google images can bring up plenty if you care to look.



Jeanneliza said:


> Yes a private venue does have the RIGHT to limit the kind of speech or clothing worn in their venues. If they lower the bar on speech to eliminate anything that offends or makes others uncomfortable that is their RIGHT. If they do so because they believe limiting peoples ability to offend others is good for business, that is their RIGHT. Free speech is not an unlimited right, the USSC as found for legal limitations, slander and libel, incitement to violence, pornography beyond the standards of the community, and PRIVATE venues, non are protected under the Constitution.
> A Black Baptist church does not HAVE to allow KKK members preaching hate on their premises, and Con organizers do not HAVE to allow clothing or comments that make people uncomformtable. Pretty simple really.




A convention could also make it a male only event, but just because they *could* doesn't mean that they *should*.  There's nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions about policies going too far, especially this day in age when there are plenty of examples of policies going too far.  Surely there are policies that we can put into place that both help reduce incidents and at the same time aren't overbearing.  The issues being discussed here seem to be where the line should be drawn.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

damned said:


> yeah lets do that. lets do that because it means you and i dont have to do jack. it means i dont have to do the uncomfortable stuff like asking the bloke beside me his comments or roleplaying is unacceptable, it means i dont have to reach out to a complete stranger and make sure she is ok, and I dont have to be the spoil sport who tells the joker at the table that he is not funny but is crude and offensive.
> 
> thats a cop out from where im standing. the behaviour is undesirable and it makes others feel unsafe. we can be men in lots of different ways - standing up for others who dont have the voice or the power to do it themselves is a perfect start. and if you dont do it at least support the person that does and side with them straight away. dont wait to see if they cop any flack first.




I'm straw man...I promised we do ALOT more... We need like a neighbour good watch but a con watch we need to help with more security and report any and all activity... I don't know where this do nothing thing comes from


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have been Useing half that number... 4% instead of 8 just to give margin for error... At 4% it is still 500 a day. Of it was 500 per year it would be staggering...that is 1% this needs addressing there should be 0 rapes and less then 10 sexual assaults at the cons...




Your 4% is almost as bad.  Let's assume that the convention is as bad as the gang infested slums of Los Angeles.  Let's also increase con attendance to 100k, instead of 61k.  We now have 2 rapes and 20 assaults per day.  Not 500.  Not 1000.  It needs to be fixed, but let's at least try to fix the reasonable number and not one that is blown way out of proportion.



> not 500 a day




There aren't.


----------



## damned

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm straw man...I promised we do ALOT more... We need like a neighbour good watch but a con watch we need to help with more security and report any and all activity... I don't know where this do nothing thing comes from




apologies if i misunderstood your comment.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I find the number of assaults at a convention like that to be wholly unbelievable.  There's no way that a bunch of gamers are that much worse than gang members, pimps, slums, and so on.




Well, consider that, depending on whose studies you read, over 60% of sexual assaults and rapes go unreported to the police.  So, if you are basing on reported crime rates, you have to *more than double* to get the actual incidence.  



> I don't think Umbran would knowingly post misleading info, but that doesn't mean that the study he's talking about is correct.




I think I was pretty clear about its provenance, and posted links.  The raw data is available.  It was an *informal* study, done by an attendee, and I remarked that I myself would prefer to have more rigor.

But, let us take that 8% number just as historical:  8% of ComicCon attendees are harassed at some point in their con-going career.  San Diego ComicCon 2015 had something like 130,000.  That means if you were there, you were standing in the company of 10,000 people who have been harassed at some convention.   You go to see the masquerade?  These people are *all around you*.  There will be several in your line of sight at pretty much all times.  Consider that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

damned said:


> apologies if i misunderstood your comment.



I actually agree with most of what you said can be done too...but word from experience be careful how you ask strangers of they are all right (even though if you see me crying that most likely means I want to be asked) some people get insulted and some women think you are trying to be a "white knight" so they will sleep with you even if you are just being pita or nice the way you would be to a guy...


----------



## Myrdin Potter

There is a little too many posts focusing on women, a harassment policy protects everyone at the event or store.  Women are often targets but they are capable of harassing as well.  I currently have a woman that keeps contacting me in the hope of a relationship and I have had to go to a lawyer and send a warning letter and probably will have to get a restraining order soon.

Women don't need white knights, they need a well run convention or store where they can game and avoid unpleasantness.  Just like the rest of us need the same thing.

People with disabilities, different sexual preferences or gender choices are also often targets.

The purpose of a harassment policy is to level the playing field and make it clear that it is not tolerated regardless of who does it.

Reality is that women are targeted more.  Not a gamer problem alone but it is a problem.  All of us "not all men" or "not all gamers" need to do a little better to keep the exceptions out.

You can find a million edge cases and hypothetical examples to argue about but that is not the point.

For example, some women game to meet men and date.  They like gaming and are looking for a boy friend who shares their interest.  That is not an excuse to hit on every woman in the store.  Chances are pretty good that the woman you are hitting on is just there to game and wants to be treated like everyone else.

Another example, many people enjoy crude humor, at least in moderation.  That is not an excuse to be like like in public without the benefit of actually knowing the audience.


----------



## Jester David

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Is that the point? Does that really work?



Maybe. So little else seems to be working. Things aren't getting better.

Getting people to view persistent harassment as a form of domestic terrorism changes our response. We ask ourselves "if this was a terrorist rather than an individual jerk, would I respond the same way?" or "is my response enough?" It challenges our assumptions, shaking the reader out of their comfort zone. Which is sometimes needed.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Or do you just appear as having an unreasonable opinion



It's not an opinion. It's comparing the legal definition of terrorism from the criminal code with a form of violence and harassment not typically seen as terrorism, and finding out it could (should?) apply. 
_“in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” and with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.”_

Whether or not you believe sexual harassment can be a form of terrorism is your opinion. But intimidating someone out of fear of their lives to not do something because you hold a philosophy is terrorism in a nutshell.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> or attacking the reader/listener, which prompts him into self-defense mode, instead of introspection? Or what if their introspection reveals that they have never harassed a woman, or seen it happening, because they don't just play with any as*hole, but with decent people?



Well... if they've never harassed a woman, seen it happening, and the like then they're not being attacked. 
It's actually not really an attacking piece. It's not "men are white terrorists". It just provides stories of rampant abuse with an attention grabbing title meant to make people actually stop and do that introspection. 

And maybe they're really get introspective and wonder if they've *really* never, ever seen abuse or been in a position to help out:
https://owenkcstephens.com/2016/04/03/ways-i-have-failed/


----------



## Taneras

Umbran said:


> I think I was pretty clear about its provenance, and posted links.  The raw data is available.  It was an *informal* study, done by an attendee, and I remarked that I myself would prefer to have more rigor.
> 
> But, let us take that 8% number just as historical:  8% of ComicCon attendees are harassed at some point in their con-going career.  San Diego ComicCon 2015 had something like 130,000.  That means if you were there, you were standing in the company of 10,000 people who have been harassed at some convention.   You go to see the masquerade?  These people are *all around you*.  There will be several in your line of sight at pretty much all times.  Consider that.




I could go back and try and find the poll, but since you're right here, and I'm not trying to diminish the sexual nature of some of the harassment, but did your poll specifically ask about sexual harassment/assault/rape?  Or was it about harassment in general, which would include harassment that wasn't tied to any demographic as well as harassment tied to a demographic (racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.)?


----------



## Taneras

Myrdin Potter said:


> There is a little too many posts focusing on women, a harassment policy protects everyone at the event or store.  Women are often targets but they are capable of harassing as well.  I currently have a woman that keeps contacting me in the hope of a relationship and I have had to go to a lawyer and send a warning letter and probably will have to get a restraining order soon.
> 
> Women don't need white knights, they need a well run convention or store where they can game and avoid unpleasantness.  Just like the rest of us need the same thing.
> 
> People with disabilities, different sexual preferences or gender choices are also often targets.
> 
> The purpose of a harassment policy is to level the playing field and make it clear that it is not tolerated regardless of who does it.
> 
> Reality is that women are targeted more.  Not a gamer problem alone but it is a problem.  All of us "not all men" or "not all gamers" need to do a little better to keep the exceptions out.
> 
> You can find a million edge cases and hypothetical examples to argue about but that is not the point.
> 
> For example, some women game to meet men and date.  They like gaming and are looking for a boy friend who shares their interest.  That is not an excuse to hit on every woman in the store.  Chances are pretty good that the woman you are hitting on is just there to game and wants to be treated like everyone else.
> 
> Another example, many people enjoy crude humor, at least in moderation.  That is not an excuse to be like like in public without the benefit of actually knowing the audience.




*VERY* well said, I agree 100%.  There's no problem noticing that certain groups are the targets of harassment more often than not, but lets not forget the reason we're having this discussion in the first place - harassment.  Policies shouldn't focus specifically to reduce harassment of certain demographics when i hose policies could easily be tweaked to reduce harassment of all demographics.


----------



## Jeanneliza

Taneras said:


> An assault needs to be a threat coupled with an apparent and present ability to carry out that specific threat.
> 
> Just wearing a KKK white garb isn't enough to fit that bill, just as carrying a confederate flag above your head or having it on a T-shirt doesn't fit that bill.  I'm not going to post pictures of recent KKK demonstrations (rallies, protests, marches, etc) but some of their members are bold enough to wear the KKK white garb in public and the police don't bother them.  Google images can bring up plenty if you care to look.
> 
> 
> 
> A convention could also make it a male only event, but just because they *could* doesn't mean that they *should*.  There's nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions about policies going too far, especially this day in age when there are plenty of examples of policies going too far.  Surely there are policies that we can put into place that both help reduce incidents and at the same time aren't overbearing.  The issues being discussed here seem to be where the line should be drawn.




I never suggested what Con organizers should or should not do. I noted legal definition of assault and battery, I noted the legal limits on free speech. I perhaps should have said that is a person in a white hood shows up at a black church, or at a black persons home that indeed could be constituted as a threat/assault given the clear meaning of the hood to people of other races. As for me, I had considered making an effort to attend Gen-Con this summer, largely to meet the members of ConTessa in person, have a one time chance of playing  a game live instead of online, and the do indeed offer all women games with the support of the convention organizers. For me, because I have a disability that is invisible to others but not in the limitations it imposes on me, and that would increase the cost of attending such an event, I have decided to take a pass on it. Do I fear assault? Not really, despite being a 60 year old grandmother with totally silver hair and standing only 5 foot tall and 120 pounds soaking wet, I can hold my own. Wasp spray is legal, effective, and shoots 20 feet. Cheap and can be kept anywhere a woman feels she may be at risk, including her own bedroom. I have heard some on here about  what women are taught, and in fact some of it is wrong. ALWAYS make eye contact with perceived threats. Now you can IDENTIFY them. On the streets and anywhere else assailants look for people who are either oblivious to what is happening around them, or so intimidated they are visibly walking in fear, eyes down, shoulder hunched. There are many techniques taught in assault prevention classes that are different from what the public accepts as what works.
That and it seems to have an effect on some of the more insulting types to have a five foot silver haired grandmother look em straight in the eye and say something like "You can do that, if you wish to be neutered before you are done." I can even say it with a smile, that is really scary because then they think their intended victim is crazy as well.
I got into some of this in response to the community I am part of asking for more women in their games, questioning how they could bring more women into the hobby. On this thread there is a litany of exactly what NOT to do. If you want to keep the hobby exclusive carry on. If you genuinely want to broaden the fan and customer base, starting from what shouldn't be done because it may pose a risk of a false accusation to a few, or be too extreme, or can be abused that is a mistake. If you want more women in the hobby then actually listen to what the women say about why they avoid it, and respect whether you agree or not that they have valid concerns.
Nitpicking finer points while women, while ANYONE suffers is not going to convince them to join in.
As to the numbers cited, somewhere someone commented, what those numbers don't reflect and would likely drive them much higher is how many have already left the hobby, gave it a try and never came back? They are unknown, unreachable to surveys of current gamers community. How many have ALREADY been driven away in the 40 some years since this started growing? Those are numbers that are likely impossible to measure,but if anyone thinks the inability to measure them accurately means they are low or non-existent I suspect they have another think coming. Last Friday I was 2 games away from becoming one of THAT number.


----------



## Jester David

To me, the issue with the reaction to this article and the subject is the amount of danger. 

As a white male gamer, knowing there's sexism and people like me are to blame makes me feel guilty and shameful. I don't like being at fault, or thinking of how - at the right place and time - I could be "the bad guy" that's at fault. Or, how, during my super awkward teenaged years, maybe I _was_ "the bad guy", being that creepy person who made women uncomfortable. 

The danger to women, to _people _in this hobby, is violent: death threats, rape threats, unwanted contact, doxing, and the like. And, again, the danger to me and men like me is that my feelings get hurt. 


Y'know what, if hurt feelings are the cost I need to pay so that progress can be made in this hobby, then I'll happily pay. I'll pay twice. It's an insignificant price.


----------



## Taneras

Jester Canuck said:


> The danger to women, to _people _in this hobby, is violent: death threats, rape threats, unwanted contact, doxing, and the like. And, again, the danger to me and men like me is that my feelings get hurt.




This extremely simplistic view is what some people are talking about.  Everyone is capable of receiving death threats, doxing, unwanted contact, etc.  Yes, obviously its more often than not women and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that.  But if the concern is reducing the instances of said harassment why do we keep seeing comments that label this as a black and white issue.

Comments above are no different from people saying that women don't receive harassment.  If enough people said that the only danger men face is getting their feelings hurt that could pressure some men into not reporting issues they might face.

Again, if this conversation is about creating a policy to reduce harassment, I'm all in.  What can we do to reduce harassment at these conventions, without going overborad, and make it a welcome place for everyone?  Lets work to make this an enjoyable experience for all people.

If this conversation is about creating a policy to reduced harassment women face, despite the fact that tweaking such a policy to include/protect *EVERYONE* is likely very easy to do (just modify/add a few words), then its part of the problem it wants to solve.


----------



## Jester David

Taneras said:


> This extremely simplistic view is what some people are talking about.  Everyone is capable of receiving death threats, doxing, unwanted contact, etc.  Yes, obviously its more often than not women and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that.  But if the concern is reducing the instances of said harassment why do we keep seeing comments that label this as a black and white issue.
> 
> Comments above are no different from people saying that women don't receive harassment.  If enough people said that the only danger men face is getting their feelings hurt that could pressure some men into not reporting issues they might face.
> 
> Again, if this conversation is about creating a policy to reduce harassment, I'm all in.  What can we do to reduce harassment at these conventions, without going overborad, and make it a welcome place for everyone?  Lets work to make this an enjoyable experience for all people.
> 
> If this conversation is about creating a policy to reduced harassment women face, despite the fact that tweaking such a policy to include/protect *EVERYONE* is likely very easy to do (just modify/add a few words), then its part of the problem it wants to solve.



_Won't somebody *please *think of the poor white men!
_
Sure, white males can be harassed, raped, abused and the victim of racism. But that's not the majority of cases. But that's a small percentage (insignificant really, being within the margin of error). It doesn't deserve to be the focus of the conversation and is really a distraction of the larger issue.
If the house is on fire, you don't take a fire extinguisher to the smouldering shed.  

Yeah, any harassment policy should be broad and encompass everyone. Was that ever in doubt? Focusing on just women excludes all sorts of other groups, such as People of Colour, intersex and homosexual individuals, and people with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities. 
I don't think the discussion was ever on *just* protecting women. And as we address the issue for one group, it helps address the issue for others. It helps everyone.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Taneras said:


> *VERY* well said, I agree 100%.  There's no problem noticing that certain groups are the targets of harassment more often than not, but lets not forget the reason we're having this discussion in the first place - harassment.  Policies shouldn't focus specifically to reduce harassment of certain demographics when i hose policies could easily be tweaked to reduce harassment of all demographics.




There is no need to tweak anything. The harassment policy should be about no harassment.  The enforcement probably will be mainly protecting women.  There is no contradiction there And nothing to tweak.

I said too much focus on women only distracts from the key point and draws in too many sex wars comments.  I also said the fact is that they are the demographic most affected.

a well written policy will protect everyone, but the standard example policy at most cons already does that.


----------



## SkidAce

GMforPowergamers said:


> Gen Con Attendance 61,423 in 2015 if 8% were assaulted that is 5,000 people...(4,914.8) what can we do to bring that down to a double digit number this year and a 0 next...




5,000 people got assaulted? Where was this happening?  Where were the police?

Heck where was the news media?

All I will say in this thread is if my group of DnDer's ever sees someone (anyone) getting assaulted or bullied, we will be putting a stop to it.

(We are an eclectic group of ex military, librarians, retail, police, male, female, trans, LARP, and SCA participants.)


----------



## Taneras

Jester Canuck said:


> _Won't somebody *please *think of the poor white men!
> _




I'm asking people to think of the victims of harassment, you're the one bringing in demographics.



Jester Canuck said:


> Sure, white males can be harassed, raped, abused and the victim of racism. But that's not the majority of cases. But that's a small percentage (insignificant really, being within the margin of error). It doesn't deserve to be the focus of the conversation and is really a distraction of the larger issue.




I'm not saying focus on men, I'm saying focus on stopping harassment.



Jester Canuck said:


> If the house is on fire, you don't take a fire extinguisher to the smouldering shed.




The fire is on the gaming convention, lets put out that fire.  Lets stop harassment.



Jester Canuck said:


> Yeah, any harassment policy should be broad and encompass everyone. Was that ever in doubt?




Yes, there have been plenty of posts suggesting that men have very little to fear and women have everything to fear.  We aren't talking about cells that are apart of a larger organism.  We aren't looking at the entire male organism and saying, well only a few cells are sick, the overall organism is very healthy so no issue here.  Oh wait, look at this organism over here.  Wow, look at all the sick cells, yes this female organism is really bad off and in need of help.

Those individuals in the male organism are being overlooked just because most of the other cells in that same demographic are doing well.  A lot of good that does for the few male cells that aren't doing well.

The focus here should be on the individual, not the demographic.  Focusing on demographics can let some victims slip through the cracks.  If we focus on all victims then it'd be a lot tougher for a victim to slip through the cracks.



Jester Canuck said:


> Focusing on just women excludes all sorts of other groups, such as People of Colour, intersex and homosexual individuals, and people with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities.
> I don't think the discussion was ever on *just* protecting women. And as we address the issue for one group, it helps address the issue for others. It helps everyone.




I don't think that's been the intent but I've seen several posts asking people to broaden the conversation as it has almost exclusively been about men and women.


----------



## Taneras

Myrdin Potter said:


> There is no need to tweak anything. The harassment policy should be about no harassment.




Not according to Christopher Helton, the author of the featured article.  He's repeatedly said this discussion is about women and an anti-harassment policy aimed at protecting them.



Christopher Helton said:


> That would be great if this were a genderless problem, but it isn't. It is about women being harassed. If the topic were "_hey, men and women are getting harassed and threatened with rape in tabletop gaming_ then we could leave gender out the the discussion.




And he's not alone.  I'm not going to dig up more posts, I'm sure me just pointing this out will bring them out of the wood works.  That's why I'm referring to tweaking a policy.  Assuming they build a policy to protect women, how hard would it be to tweak it to protect everyone?  I've asked that question to them and it hasn't been answered.



Myrdin Potter said:


> The enforcement probably will be mainly protecting women.




Yes I agree.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SkidAce said:


> 5,000 people got assaulted? Where was this happening?  Where were the police?
> 
> Heck where was the news media?
> 
> All I will say in this thread is if my group of DnDer's ever sees someone (anyone) getting assaulted or bullied, we will be putting a stop to it.
> 
> (We are an eclectic group of ex military, librarians, retail, police, male, female, trans, LARP, and SCA participants.)




I don't know the were...I mean it must be at tables or on selling floor or in halls I would guess. I was told there was nothing police can do...


----------



## Jester David

Taneras said:


> I'm asking people to think of the victims of harassment, you're the one bringing in demographics.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying focus on men, I'm saying focus on stopping harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> The fire is on the gaming convention, lets put out that fire.  Lets stop harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there have been plenty of posts suggesting that men have very little to fear and women have everything to fear.  We aren't talking about cells that are apart of a larger organism.  We aren't looking at the entire male organism and saying, well only a few cells are sick, the overall organism is very healthy so no issue here.  Oh wait, look at this organism over here.  Wow, look at all the sick cells, yes this female organism is really bad off and in need of help.
> 
> Those individuals in the male organism are being overlooked just because most of the other cells in that same demographic are doing well.  A lot of good that does for the few male cells that aren't doing well.
> 
> The focus here should be on the individual, not the demographic.  Focusing on demographics can let some victims slip through the cracks.  If we focus on all victims then it'd be a lot tougher for a victim to slip through the cracks.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's been the intent but I've seen several posts asking people to broaden the conversation as it has almost exclusively been about men and women.



A rising tide lifts all ships. 
A policy (and change of mindset) that makes harassment unacceptable towards women will also benefit men who are being harassed. 

The conversation is about ending harassment, but focusing on the most prominent and widespread instance of harassment. Because it's a HUGE issue and requires a lot of work, which means attacking the problem bit-by-bit. You win a war by winning innumerable battles, both small and large.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

Actually, you are once again misunderstanding what is being said.  The article is about harassment of women.  Bringing in 100 hypothetical cases about men and complaining about how the enforcement will probably target men is not the point of the article.  A harassment policy probably is a good idea without considering women, but the clear problem of harassment of women makes it necessary to have the policy.

A properly written policy will protect everyone and I have not seen examples of policies that do not do that.

I prefer to be more inclusive and consider other demographics that also get targeted, at least in discussion here.

Another edge case about the poor oppressed man is not needed.


----------



## Christopher Helton

You guys do understand that the Gen Con harassment policy has been in place for a while, right? I mean, since everyone read my article you all saw the section talking about the _actual_ policy that Gen Con has, right? I even highlighted it in red for the convenience of some, and linked to the website for the full details. Once again, this is something that has happened, is in place and isn't a hypothetical.


----------



## Taneras

Jester Canuck said:


> A rising tide lifts all ships.
> A policy (and change of mindset) that makes harassment unacceptable towards women will also benefit men who are being harassed.
> 
> The conversation is about ending harassment, but focusing on the most prominent and widespread instance of harassment. Because it's a HUGE issue and requires a lot of work, which means attacking the problem bit-by-bit. You win a war by winning innumerable battles, both small and large.




Well said, I agree.  I just think it does more harm than good to suggest that men are somehow essentially immune to being harassed and all they have to worry about is hurt feelings.

Obviously the majority of the victims are women, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.  Facts are facts.  That said, what brought me here and has kept me spending so much time here is this demographics theme.  I think its gone beyond just pointing out that the majority of victims are women to solely focusing on women - which as I said earlier could influence some men to not come forward with their issues (a bit like domestic abuse and rape, it can be tougher to come forward as a man in those instances because of the way society views men and women).

So yes, a rising tide lifts all ships.  Hopefully our efforts at reducing harassment at gaming conventions (and honestly all walks of life - we can bring what we learn here and apply it to other areas) do have good results.  As I've stated earlier this thread has raised awareness with me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> You guys do understand that the Gen Con harassment policy has been in place for a while, right? I mean, since everyone read my article you all saw the section talking about the _actual_ policy that Gen Con has, right? I even highlighted it in red for the convenience of some, and linked to the website for the full details. Once again, this is something that has happened, is in place and isn't a hypothetical.




But the policy isn't working? I am not getting this then. How are there so many assaults if we have a way to deal with them? Are they not being handled?


----------



## Taneras

Myrdin Potter said:


> Actually, you are once again misunderstanding what is being said.  The article is about harassment of women.




What's there to misunderstand about the statement "That would be great if this were a genderless problem, but it isn't."  The reason Christopher Helton feels he needs to make an article about harassment of women is because he doesn't think there is an issue with harassment with men.  Again, it's not a *genderless* issue.  It's a female issue.  According to him.



Myrdin Potter said:


> Bringing in 100 hypothetical cases about men and complaining about how the enforcement will probably target men is not the point of the article.




Thankfully I made no such distinction.  I just got finished agreeing with you that the enforcement will mostly protect women as they're the most common victim.  By virtue that would mean that the same enforcement would target men as they're statistically the group doing the harassment.


----------



## Christopher Helton

GMforPowergamers said:


> But the policy isn't working? I am not getting this then. How are there so many assaults if we have a way to deal with them? Are they not being handled?




Only a 2/10 for derailing. You're giving us the weak sauce, dude.


----------



## cmad1977

GMforPowergamers said:


> But the policy isn't working? I am not getting this then. How are there so many assaults if we have a way to deal with them? Are they not being handled?




Policy is one thing. It's up to us to help enforce it. There are no 'gaming police' who hover about keeping an eye out for troublemakers. That's on us.
Edit: didn't realize you were being intentionally ignorant.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> Only a 2/10 for derailing. You're giving us the weak sauce, dude.




Dude that's pretty rude I'm ttrying to talk to you and you say I'm detailing... I started off against your article then was convinced of its validity...I am trying to talk about it..


----------



## Taneras

cmad1977 said:


> Policy is one thing. It's up to us to help enforce it. There are no 'gaming police' who hover about keeping an eye out for troublemakers. That's on us.
> Edit: didn't realize you were being intentionally ignorant.




Yea thankfully you read Christopher Helton's indepth response to show that he was being intentionally ignorant and edited your post to reflect that.

"Only a 2/10 for derailing. You're giving us the weak sauce, dude."

So convincing...


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> But the policy isn't working? I am not getting this then. How are there so many assaults if we have a way to deal with them? Are they not being handled?




They probably are handling the complaints brought before them to the best of their ability, but do you understand that the vast majority of cases are probably not being brought to them at all? Those are going to be for us to self-police by making it absolutely clear that when we see harassing behavior or hear harassing comments we will not tolerate them, we will not shrug them off, and we will not participate in them.


----------



## Myrdin Potter

"
Gen Con: The Best Four Days in Gaming! is dedicated to providing a harassment-free Event experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or affiliation. We do not tolerate harassment of convention participants in any form. Convention participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled without refund at the discretion of show management.If you need to report an issue you may do so by visiting the Show Office in room 112 or Customer Service in the Wabash East concourse."

That is the GenCon policy.  As I said, nothing targeting men in there and fully protective of anyone, including women.

No SJW or any other agenda.

Enforce that policy and recognize that women are the primary beneficiaries and all is good.  Stop trying to create a thousand hypothetical cases, and stop getting emotional about men being trampled on or whatever the complaint seems to be.

Don't harass anyone and you will have zero issues.  Report harassment if you see it or if you are asked if you witnessed something.  Pretty simple.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

First thank you for talking to me like a human being...







billd91 said:


> They probably are handling the complaints brought before them to the best of their ability, but do you understand that the vast majority of cases are probably not being brought to them at all? Those are going to be for us to self-police by making it absolutely clear that when we see harassing behavior or hear harassing comments we will not tolerate them, we will not shrug them off, and we will not participate in them.




Now how s I we help enforce or help get people reporting


----------



## Taneras

Myrdin Potter said:


> Stop trying to create a thousand hypothetical cases




Quoting people who've posted in this thread isn't creating a thousand hypothetical cases.



Myrdin Potter said:


> and stop getting emotional about men being trampled on or whatever the complaint seems to be.




My complaint/concern is that some people's attitudes here could lead to some vicitims being over looked.  I thought I made that perfectly clear?



Myrdin Potter said:


> Don't harass anyone and you will have zero issues.  Report harassment if you see it or if you are asked if you witnessed something.  Pretty simple.




I agree 100%.


----------



## Christopher Helton

Yes, "victims" being overlooked. Someone please think about the poor men?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Any victime deserve to be treated with respect. Any actually trying to hurt or assault someone doesn't


----------



## Christopher Helton

GMforPowergamers said:


> Any victime deserve to be treated with respect. Any actually trying to hurt or assault someone doesn't




I'm glad to see that we agree that we should be focusing on the women.


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> Yes, "victims" being overlooked. Someone please think about the poor men?




So a man cannot be a victim of harassment?


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> I'm glad to see that we agree that we should be focusing on the women.




Focusing on victims of harassment would include women, and everyone else, correct?


----------



## Christopher Helton

Taneras said:


> Focusing on victims of harassment would include women, correct?




Luckily, the policy covers that. Good thing, huh?

I will write an article about all of the men who are groped, threatened with rape and otherwise harassed in gaming conventions and stores. I can be reached via PM here, or you can find me on social media. Like with the women who responded to my calls for their harassment, I need to know who everyone talking to me is, and get an idea of where the harassment occurred.

Obviously, there is such an epidemic of harassment of men that it needs to be covered.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> I'm glad to see that we agree that we should be focusing on the women.




I was...you then insulted me instead of answering and got others to insult me too


----------



## Mallus

Taneras said:


> So a man cannot be a victim of harassment?



Of course they can. Are a significant number of men making claims of harassment in our hobby?


----------



## Christopher Helton

GMforPowergamers said:


> I was...you then insulted me instead of answering and got others to insult me too




Respect is earned, not given.


----------



## Taneras

Mallus said:


> Of course they can. Are a significant number of men making claims of harassment in our hobby?




Nope.  Does it matter that most men aren't facing harassment to the few men who are facing harassment?


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> Obviously, there is such an epidemic of harassment of men that it needs to be covered.




No, if you'd read my comments you'd see that my point is simple.

The fact that most all men aren't being harassed does little to help the men who are being harassed.  Focusing on the victim protects everyone, focusing on women (as you've suggested) doesn't.  Sure, you might be batting 95% with the victims but you could easily be batting 100% if you'd just focus on victims period.


----------



## Nylanfs

Jeanneliza said:


> As for me, I had considered making an effort to attend Gen-Con this summer, largely to meet the members of ConTessa in person, have a one time chance of playing  a game live instead of online, and the do indeed offer all women games with the support of the convention organizers. For me, because I have a disability that is invisible to others but not in the limitations it imposes on me, and that would increase the cost of attending such an event, I have decided to take a pass on it.




That sucks, would have been great for my wife and I to meet you. :-( 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Christopher Helton said:


> Respect is earned, not given.



what does that even mean in this context? If one of the jerk who go after women said that you would be livid. 

I started this thread skeptical and changed my mind part way through. Since then I have been like 90% on your side and asked since they have policies and someone since posted it what else to do. The policy is failing or I am reading your arguments wrong....


----------



## Christopher Helton

Like I said, I'm more than happy to give equal time to the harassment of men. We have to be balanced, right? Let's talk about *all* the victims.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sometimes I wish I could just wish everyone to be nice and understanding...but I can't. Do that policy seems like a great one so we are back to maybe we here at enwolrd (someone less disliked tthen I am) could start some kind of con watch... We have a crime stoped line here in CT that may be a thing to look at or neghboor good watch. We could kick start and get people involved to help the community


----------



## Taneras

Christopher Helton said:


> Like I said, I'm more than happy to give equal time to the harassment of men. We have to be balanced, right?




Who is asking you to give equal time to a certain demographic?



Christopher Helton said:


> Let's talk about *all* the victims.




I only see 3 options.

Talk about all victims.

Talk about some victims.

Ignore the problem all together.

So yes, talking about all victims sounds the best.  No.  Stop.  I'm not saying that we can't say that the majority are women.  I'm not saying that we can't say that the majority of the harassers are men.  That's not it.  Facts are facts.  I'm just saying that focusing on the fact that most vicitms are women and most harassers are men can leave out other victims (men) and harassers (women) and shift the focus away from harassment being the problem not what's between your legs.


----------



## ehren37

Christopher Helton said:


> Like I said, I'm more than happy to give equal time to the harassment of men. We have to be balanced, right? Let's talk about *all* the victims.




I'd ask that you go easy on GMforPowergamers. He seems rightfully shocked and horrified by what is happening, and wants to help. He's not terribly great at expressing himself, which he has totally admitted. Lets not cut down people too much who are by and large in agreement. I see a lot of that on social media, where groups tear themselves apart attacking someone who is 90% in line with their views.


----------



## Mallus

Taneras said:


> Nope.



Then we agree the larger problem is the harassment of women. 



> Does it matter that most men aren't facing harassment to the few men who are facing harassment?



I can't answer that, it would be speculation. I'd have to find a harassed man and ask him -- search might take awhile, since we agree that harassed men in the hobby exist in an _insignificant_ number. 

Does it matter that you seem very interested in focusing attention (and presumably, resources) on the smaller (and at this point hypothetical) problem instead of the larger one? It's kinda puzzling me.


----------



## Taneras

Double post, ignore.  Sorry.


----------



## Taneras

Mallus said:


> Then we agree the larger problem is the harassment of women.




Yes.  And the _even larger issue still_ is the harassment over everyone.



Mallus said:


> I can't answer that, it would be speculation. I'd have to find a harassed man and ask him -- search might take awhile, since we agree that harassed men in the hobby exist in an _insignificant_ number.




I'm willing to bet that the men inside the gaming community would feel the same as men outside the gaming community who are harassed.  You're a human capable of empathy, please don't pretend to be ignorant just to avoid your stance being dismantled.



Mallus said:


> Does it matter that you seem very interested in focusing attention (and presumably, resources) on the smaller (and at this point hypothetical) problem instead of the larger one? It's kinda puzzling me.




What's really puzzling is how "Lets focus on the all victims" turns into "Lets focus on the smaller issue, men being harassed".


----------



## Umbran

Christopher Helton said:


> Respect is earned, not given.





As far as EN World is concerned, everyone gets a certain modicum of respect and civility.    

If you're not on board with that, you may want to step away from the thread.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Taneras said:


> Focusing on the victim protects everyone, focusing on women (as you've suggested) doesn't.



The second half of your sentence is not true. 

Nor does it follow that focusing on the majority of victims (which is also the largest pool of people likely to be targeted for harassment) removes the focus from other groups that may face harassment. 

Your argument presents the issue in binary terms, and in so doing you're misrepresenting the issue.


----------



## Christopher Helton

ehren37 said:


> I'd ask that you go easy on GMforPowergamers. He seems rightfully shocked and horrified by what is happening, and wants to help. He's not terribly great at expressing himself, which he has totally admitted. Lets not cut down people too much who are by and large in agreement. I see a lot of that on social media, where groups tear themselves apart attacking someone who is 90% in line with their views.




This isn't a discussion about who likes what system. This is a discussion about women being harassed, being groped against their will, having their characters gleefully and graphically raped at gaming tables. There is no "90%" agreement on this issue.

Again, this isn't a discussion of hypotheticals or men getting their feelings hurt. This is about actual things happening to actual women.


----------



## Taneras

sanishiver said:


> The second half of your sentence is not true.




Outside of asserting that that's the case, can you explain why only focusing on women actually focus on protecting everyone?

The group "women" doesn't include everyone, therefore focusing on women doesn't focus on everyone.



sanishiver said:


> Nor does it follow that focusing on the majority of victims (which is also the largest pool of people likely to be targeted for harassment) removes the focus from other groups that may face harassment.




I'd argue that the definition of the word focus, which was the term being used, necessitates that it does.  If you specify you're focusing your attention on women how can you be focusing your attention on everyone?



sanishiver said:


> Your argument presents the issue in binary terms, and in so doing you're misrepresenting the issue.




Can you explain that a bit more, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult.


----------



## ehren37

Christopher Helton said:


> This isn't a discussion about who likes what system. This is a discussion about women being harassed, being groped against their will, having their characters gleefully and graphically raped at gaming tables.




If you read him, he does seem against this.



> There is no "90%" agreement on this issue.



The 90% comes from how to implement policies to prevent it. For example, some might be a one strike and out, others might say a warning then eject, others might say refund, others might say no refund. When you start getting into specifics of how best to implement a policy to eject people, there are going to be details to hash out. That's where you probably dont want to shut down those 90% on your side of wanting to do something because they dont want to enact the exact same change you do. 

He's basically on your side, and has expressed that this thread has opened his eyes to an issue he wasnt really informed/aware of. If you want to browbeat him, I guess that's your call. I totally agree there are some bad actors in the thread, but I also see some people kind of shellshocked about how rampant some behaviors are. 

I get it's frustrating to explain the same thing over and over (for example, why it's blacklivesmatter, not alllivesmatter), but unless you only want to preach to the choir, sometimes you have to do just that.


----------



## Morrus

I think this thread is done. It's just a handful of people going round in circles now, and it's getting increasingly hostile. It's certainly not accomplishing anything.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Taneras said:


> Outside of asserting that that's the case, can you explain why only focusing on women actually focus on protecting everyone?




Females are being focused upon because- to date- they're overwhelmingly the ones being victimized.  It is their metaphorical house that is on fire right now.

And, with respect, I don't think _anyone _ has proposed that *only *women need protecting. As I have stated before, any policy or law directed at the behavior in question will probably be drafted with gender-neutral language unless there are found to be harassment aspects unique to their gender.


----------

