# Harassment in gaming



## Ancalagon

It is with a heavy heart I post this link.

http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem

I don't think that the gaming community is somehow immune to the ills of society at large.  I don't have any real solution (except doing my part not to be part of the problem) but I think it's something we have to talk about.


----------



## Hussar

Wow.  That's brutal.  Not totally shocking, but brutal.  Heck, even in somewhere as open minded as En World, all you have to do is start up a "chainmail bikinis" thread and you'll see all sorts of this kind of misogyny.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I've been very fortunate.  I'm a black guy in the hobby since '77, and I've only personally encountered one other gamer I'm pretty sure was racist, and AFAIK, I don't think the others in the game group realized it.

OTOH, I've seen some of the behavior women get subjected to in comic and hobby shops.  In one, I remember a woman mistakenly walking into the game store- it was right next door to a salon- and @5' into the place, she realized her error as the store went dead quiet and every guy (that I could see) in the store was staring at her.  (I generated a similar reaction walking into a C&W bar, once.)


----------



## Rechan

I was sorely tempted to post this link, so I'm glad someone did. 

Nerd culture is going through a social upheaval right now, with these sorts of things going on in the videogame fandoms (Gamergate), the SF/F writing community (Rabid/Sad puppies), this degree of aggressive, polarized social war going on. I'm sad to see it in the gaming community. 

Tabletop has always been a super niche fringe community. For gaming to continue, we can't afford to let such unpleasant behavior turn people away. And this sort of thing will snowball. One person saying they have this problem will contribute to someoen who hears about it deciding not to play. Gaing is one of those hobbies that seems to get sacrificed for ANY sort of RL reason (I call it the "activity of least commitment"); adding this to the list of things pushing people away hurts the game. And we all know how "no game is better than a bad game", with people who have Bad habits.

If you see/hear people in your group, or around you in a public nerd space being toxic, you gotta say something. Don't invite those people back. The mere suggestion that "hey that kind of stuff isn't welcome here" is often all it takes to halt it in its tracks.


----------



## Elf Witch

I saw this on Facebook in several places and while it generate some good discussion a lot was drowned out by the old " I have never seen it so it does not exist" that and the "where is the evidence". 

Even when several female gamer spoke up they were ignored. I will admit that the title can be a bit provocative and I understand that a lot of cis white guys are getting upset because they think all men are being blamed but that is not true. 

I have been in gaming and other geek fandoms since 1975. Here is my experience. At the 1976 Worldcon when I was 18 I was in an elevator in the Fountinblue hotel. A famous writer got on he had been drinking he started coming on to me and then he grabbed my crotch. I was shocked and didn't know how to respond. I told con security about it and was told yeah he gets like that after a few drinks just try and avoid him. During the 80s there was a few well known writers and editors that we knew were leeches they harassed female writers, editors and fans. Basically how the con staff handled it was to warn us to watch out for it. Basically these guys were allowed to get away with it and the onus for protecting ourselves was placed on us. 

I have to say now many cons are finally taking a stance against harassment of any kind  and it has been openly acknowledged as a problem at least with many literary cons run by fans. I understand both Comic Con and Dragoncon claim to have anti harassment policies but good luck getting them enforced. A friend of mine two years ago took her 13 year old daughter to a large run for profit con in Miami she is a comic geek and so his her daughter. Her daughter dressed up as Supergirl not the micro mini crop top of the comic but the version from the older comics. When she bent over to take a drink some creep fondled her. Her mom complained to security and it was dismissed two things were said one that it was all the cosplaying girls dressing like sluts who were getting the guys riled up and secondly that her daughter should have been more careful. I guess the message is if you dare to bend over to take a drink you are asking for it. They have not been back to any con since. 

In the 1980s I stopped playing DnD one reason because the games I was finding was filled with socially maladjusted guys. My one experience playing in a game store turned me off that. The DM had us captured and since I was the only female PC he had my character raped and he went into graphic descriptions of what was happening to my character. I asked him to stop that it was making me uncomfortable. We had words and I started to cry which I do when I get really angry he stated mocking me. Several of the other players were very uncomfortable and got up and left. A couple of the other players took the DM side and said I was being over sensitive it was only game. The game broke up and the DM complained to the store owner that I had caused drama and disrupted his game so I was one that was banned. 

There was so much subtle sexism from DMs enforcing strength caps on female PCs to coming up with some off the wall house rules to handle realism of having a female PC. I remember one DM who had kept track of female PCs cycles because it was important to know if they were menstruating because that made them have minuses to will saves but hey we were allowed to rage.  

If you tried to speak out about it then you were told you were over sensitive or causing drama. So as a busy mom of a young child I dropped gaming for my other geek hobbies. I did start playing again in the late 80s but DnD I played Hero or Vampire the Masquerade.  When I started playing DnD again with some trepidation I found a group that still has member I play with today that was in mid 90s. 

Since I don't play in stores or cons I can't speak about what happens there from personal experience but I have read other women gamers saying that harassment sometimes still happens. 

I have played with a lot of great guys since the 90s. My son's gaming group has female players in it. So I know that not all male gamers are sexist jerks. I also don't have any trouble walking into a game store now but then I am also 58 and over weight so I am not really a target for it. It would be like harassing your mother. 

I do think that all of us should do what we can to make our hobby inviting to anyone who wants to play.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

The things she describes are horrible, and anyone who was there for those incidents who knowingly allowed them, ignored them, or refused to back her up are to blame, too.

I have a problem with this one statement, though:

>Men can shout all they like that #notallmen 
>harass women, but as long as gamers defend 
>their bigoted behaviour as a “sense of humour” 
>(implying that women who don’t like being groped 
>are somehow at fault), #allmen are complicit 
>in the harassment.

All men are not gamers.  Not all gamers defend the type of behavior she talks about, even when the bad guy in the scenario tries to claim it was a joke.  Therefore, not all men are complicit in the harrassment.     I hope she just worded that poorly.


----------



## Ancalagon

By saying "not all men" you're acting defensively, and trying to shift the conversation away from the problem.  It doesn't help.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

No, I was just pointing out the inherent problem with making a sweeping generalization about an entire gender in an article which is pointing out the serious effects of sexism and gender discrimination.  That's the type of thing that can weaken a strong article.  I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it was just poor wording on her part.


----------



## Umbran

Her approach to the issue of "not all men" is flawed.  That is largely beside the point, but perhaps we should quickly address it so we can move on.

The defensive "not all men" stance is understandable - when someone says, "men do this" it does seem a pretty sweeping statement.  It *reads* like stereotyping, and nobody likes to be stereotyped.  Unfortunately, the defensive reaction does redirect the conversation to the innocence of some men, rather than on the actual problem. 

So, there's a bit of a flaw on both sides - the generalized statement of, "men do this," is not as well-formed as it might be, and the response misses the actual point.  The most constructive form of the conversation (at least the most that we can usually hope for) should go like this:

"Men harass women."
"Well, not *all* men harass women..."
"Okay, that is true.  But *enough* men do it that there's a serious problem.  Can we discuss that serious problem, please?  I'm hoping you can be part of the solution."

Because, ultimately, that *is* the point.  Men who *don't* harass women are in a position to apply peer pressure to help stop this behavior.  

So, having noted this typical flaw in the argument, can we talk about the serious problem, please?


----------



## Ancalagon

Thank you [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]

So... what can we do, as individual gamers?  Well... I know this part:

1:  don't be a creep/harasser/rapist

2:  Try to let go of sexist ideas, and specifically the notion that RPGs is a "guy thing".  When I was young I just assumed that RPGs were a guy thing, same way GI-JOEs were a guy things and dolls a girl thing.  (And yes, GI-JOEs *are* little dolls...).  There is absolutely no reason why women shouldn't be about 50% of pen and paper RPG gamers.  None.

3:  Listen to women.  If a woman tells you "I feel this art is demeaning" don't argue with her.  If you don't get it, ask her why (and TONE of voice is important here people).   As a white guy, I don't get to decide if using the N word is offensive, and I don't get to decide if a piece of art is offensive to women.   And if a woman tells you she's been harassed or worse, for the love of god do something. 

4:  If another guy does or says something creepy, call them out on it, EVEN if there are no women present.  When a rapist makes a rape joke around other guys, he's gauging the audience.  

But appart from that... I don't know?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

One thing I think is important to point out is that- when it comes to bullying and verbal/physical assaults- a lot of victimizers are victims themselves.  The acts of aggression towards those they think are weaker is a maladaptive way to regain power they feel they have lost.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out most of our fellow gamers who commit these heinous acts were themselves bullied.

Not that that's an excuse, of course, nor is it a reason for those of us who are witnesses to such behavior to tolerate it.  Just something to keep in mind: the ones doing the hurting may be wounded themselves.  Merely reacting with angry confrontation may not achieve the desired result


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ancalagon said:


> By saying "not all men" you're acting defensively, and trying to shift the conversation away from the problem.  It doesn't help.




If someone tells you that that guy over there harassed them, and you respond 'not all men harass,' then, yes, you're a douchecopter and are trivializing the issue.

If someone tells you that there's a white male terrorism problem in gaming, though, they've steered away from this issue with a bombastic, racist, sexist statement, and your response of 'not all white men terrorism gaming' is perfectly valid and not steering away from the problem because the problem was misstated.  Telling people getting broadbrushed with racist and sexist remarks accusing them of terrorism that they can't defend against themselves because there's some real problem behind the rhetoric is cr*p.  First, I'd ask that you discuss the actual problem without the broad brush insults and then I'd be happy to discuss it.

There is a large contingent of socially maladjusted men in gaming that do take out their social inadequacies unfairly on women and minorities.  But that's an issue of spotlighting the actual behavior when it happens, not saying that gaming has a white male terrorism problem.  This is an issue fixed by addressing individuals, not blacklisting entire demographics.


----------



## Ancalagon

Ovinomancer said:


> First, I'd ask that you discuss the actual problem without the broad brush insults and then I'd be happy to discuss it.




So this person, who is fed up and mad as hell at all this harassment non-sense, must first adjust her messaging so not to offend your sensibilities.  Until this is done, you are unwilling to address or even discuss the problem.  Proper messaging is a bigger priority than respecting women.

I know that's not what you wanted to say... but that's effectively what you are saying.  Umbran addressed this issue already.  Can we move on and actually talk about the issue?


----------



## Mallus

Ancalagon said:


> 3:  Listen to women.  If a woman tells you "I feel this art is demeaning" don't argue with her.  If you don't get it, ask her why (and TONE of voice is important here people).   As a white guy, I don't get to decide if using the N word is offensive, and I don't get to decide if a piece of art is offensive to women.   And if a woman tells you she's been harassed or worse, for the love of god do something.



Your first 2 points are hard (and wrong) to argue with, but this one here is, ahem, problematic. You're conflating 3 separate things:

#1 A woman's response to a piece of art.

#2 A Black person's response to a racial epithet associated with centuries of both institutional and casual racism. 

#3 A woman reporting sexual harassment and/or assault. 

Muddying these things together muddies the point being made. Disagreements over aesthetics are different than one's about the use of racist invective. Besides, a single woman can't decide if a piece of art is demeaning to _women_. Only herself. Some woman hate pin-up art. Others create it. We need spaces that accommodate both.


----------



## Ancalagon

Mallus, my intention wasn't to conflate them but I can see how it came across that way.  Sorry about that :/

What I was trying to emphasize was the importance of listening, and also how we don't get to decide what is offensive to someone else - ie not to negate other people's experiences.


----------



## Curmudjinn

Maybe my experiences in role-playing groups are an anomaly, but in face-to-face games with uncomfortable or harassing, sexual-based issues, about 80% of the time was by a female gamer towards others(males and females both) at the table.
Let me sternly say, I absolutely don't condone this from men or women towards unconsenting parties. I've read a lot about this problem of sexism from male gamers, but aside from online console games, I haven't seen much of it.

It needs to be stamped out immediately by all who witness it. The person being sexually persecuted or advanced upon should never have to deal with this alone in a group of friends or players.

Practice being good human beings.


----------



## innerdude

In response to the OP ---

It sucks. All of it. 

It sucks that it happens at all. It sucks that the described responses to and treatment of those that report harassment are unresponsive at best and hostile at worst. It sucks that there is a correlation between those who engage in these kinds of behaviors and geek culture.

I am truly baffled by any male who would presume, under any circumstances, that they are allowed to physically touch someone they've never met, beyond a conventional, Western-society handshake.

I don't know what preventative measures can be taken to prevent these kinds of abuses and intolerable behaviors, but clearly there needs to be some work and research done. An easy one for "geek" conventions --- if there any reports of inappropriate contact regarding a convention-goer, the accused immediately has their credentials / pass canceled and are escorted from the premises. No follow-up needed, no witnesses required other than the word of the person making the accusation. 

Is that possibly reactionary? Maybe. Is there potential for abuse for that kind of policy? Yes. There will most certainly be cases where an accused person would be wrongfully removed from a convention. But the staggering reported numbers would seem to justify such a policy. I've never been to a "con" of any kind, so I don't know if these kinds of policies are already in place. I know that the regional ComicCon closest to me, in Salt Lake City, is one of the most well-attended regional events of its kind, but I've never looked into their attendee policies. 

For stuff happening at FLGSes? That's obviously business management's issue to deal with on a store-by-store basis, but other in-store participants also need to be willing to stand up and support those who have been treated inappropriately.

I don't know if there's any correlation between fantasy art and this kind of behavior, but I'm always surprised when I do a Google search for "fantasy warrior art" and see how much of that art is overtly sexualized, and in more cases than not the art in question is of women.

I also have to be realistic to know that I may in the past have unknowingly engaged in sexist behavior or had sexist attitudes, and that I should do my utmost to change those when I'm aware of them. In that sense it's good to hear things like this so as to take a step back and really _think_ and evaluate how I can avoid being a problem and contribute to solutions in the future.


----------



## Mallus

Ancalagon said:


> Mallus, my intention wasn't to conflate them but I can see how it came across that way.  Sorry about that :/



Hey, no need for sorry - I felt a bit like I was nitpicking. But I'm wary of social justice arguments that seem to draw unhelpful equivalencies. 



> What I was trying to emphasize was the importance of listening, and also how we don't get to decide what is offensive to someone else - ie not to negate other people's experiences.



Yeah, listening is important. But the harder part comes after, when you need to evaluate if their grievance has merit, and, if so, what action can and should be taken. To acknowledge a person's feelings isn't the same thing as agreeing they're right. It's usually so much messier. 

The one bright side to all this is there are concrete measures that can be taken. Public gaming spaces like conventions and stores can be made safer and better with strong anti-harassment policies. On the individual level, each one of us can act better in places where we're hosting/running the show, or at least leave games/spaces we're not comfortable.


----------



## Elf Witch

I would like to make a comment on the subject of art in gaming. One of the things that has always bothered me was the pin up art for female PCs. I have nothing against pin up art I always thought Vargas's pin ups were sexy. But there is a time and place for it. 

The litmus test for me is this would you dress a male PC in this and would you put them in that pose? If the answer is no then don't do it for a female. I am no talking about fantasy art work in general just gaming  there is room in art for sexy beefcake and cheesecake but unless the PC is a succubus/incubus or they ply their trade in seduction why are we dressing female PCs as some kind of sexual fantasy. 

And yes I know some women like that and want their female PC to run around in a chainmail bikini and that is fine and they go on the internet and find plenty of artwork to represent their PC. I just think that it is a turn off for a lot of female players and does not belong in artwork in game books.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> If someone tells you that there's a white male terrorism problem in gaming, though, they've steered away from this issue with a bombastic, racist, sexist statement, and your response of 'not all white men terrorism gaming' is perfectly valid and not steering away from the problem because the problem was misstated.




Actually, if there is widespread harassment, and the perpetrators are overwhelmingly white and male, then perhaps they have a point.  You know about "the tone argument" yes?  It is a logical fallacy - that an argument can be dismissed based on its presentation, rather than its content.  

That it is stated in a bombastic or hyperbolic manner does not change the actual facts of the situation, which are also presented in the piece.  What you are saying amounts to, "I'm sorry that you were _given death threats many times over the years by men_, but until such time as you can phrase your argument in such a way as I am not personally put out by it, I'm going to dismiss you for misstating your argument."

Dismissing them for hyperbole does nothing to resolve the real issues that are present.  If you look past the overstatement, and address the real issues, then the need to overstate the case will disappear.  Prove to them that you're listening, and they won't have to scream to be heard.  Stick your fingers in your ears and sing, "LALALA!  I'm not listening!" will tend to make them yell louder.  You are, in essence, exerting your power over them, by insisting that you will not pay attention until *your* sensibilities are not met.  



> Telling people getting broadbrushed with racist and sexist remarks accusing them of terrorism that they can't defend against themselves because there's some real problem behind the rhetoric is cr*p.




Yes, it is.  However, if you are a member of a group that doesn't have to take all that much crap, then maybe it makes more sense to take some crap and get to the point, rather than get into a crap-shoveling contest. 



> There is a large contingent of socially maladjusted men in gaming that do take out their social inadequacies unfairly on women and minorities.  But that's an issue of spotlighting the actual behavior when it happens, not saying that gaming has a white male terrorism problem.  This is an issue fixed by addressing individuals, not blacklisting entire demographics.




Chicken meet egg.  How do you make it so that it gets addressed on the individual level, unless you raise the issue more broadly? 

This is another answer to the "not all men" argument:  Maybe not all men, but yes *all women*.  This is not obvious to men, unless women tell them.  Men must be told _en masse_.  That's what this piece is about - another effort to inform the broad audience that the problem still exists, and men should step up to help fix it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The adage, "Many hands make light work." applies here.

By couching the discussion in general, social terms, the problematic behavior of individuals within the group becomes a community enforcement issue.  As in, *you* may not be part of the problem, but you're being asked to consider what *you* can do to be part of the solution.

Part of the problem with sexual assaults in ANY community is the issue of proof.  That's one of the root reasons why law enforcement officers of all kinds tell women* to be careful at "Greek"/Frat events...and apparently, at gaming and Cosplay cons as well.  Unless there are objective witnesses- other attendees, security cam footage, or even something someone caught on their smartphone- it is damned difficult to bring any offender to justice.  And frat brothers and geeks seem to share a common code of silence regarding this behavior.

In that link that started this thread, it was mentioned that some guy always got gropey after a few drinks.  This was well known...except to his victims.  What if a just a fraction of those around that person had spoken to authorities?  Or in public?

I'm thinking he has fewer victims, and possibly gets the punishment- and help- he needs.

Ditto most of the public fondling issues she recounted.  What are the odds that NOBODY witnessed ANY of the occurrences...or heard an offender talk about it later?

So peacekeepers- even those not inclined to dismiss such claims out of hand- are in a bind.  False reports DO happen, but we also know that sexual assaults are under-reported.  Weighing a claim of assault vs a wall of silence from potential witnesses- and the risk of lawsuits if the claim is actually false- contributes to extreme reluctance.

The solution is simple- see it, hear it, report it.  But it is a lot easier said than done.








* and minorities


----------



## Ancalagon

Someone posted this link on a facebook discussion about this, it might be a worthwhile resource?

http://www.gamermessage.com/what-is-this/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In that link that started this thread, it was mentioned that some guy always got gropey after a few drinks.  This was well known...except to his victims.  What if a just a fraction of those around that person had spoken to authorities?  Or in public?




Expanding on this incident:* who the hell at these events keeps giving him booze* if it is a known trigger/excuse for his molestations?  That kind of thing gets out, they could be held civilly and possibly criminally responsible.

(And should be.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ancalagon said:


> So this person, who is fed up and mad as hell at all this harassment non-sense, must first adjust her messaging so not to offend your sensibilities.  Until this is done, you are unwilling to address or even discuss the problem.  Proper messaging is a bigger priority than respecting women.
> 
> I know that's not what you wanted to say... but that's effectively what you are saying.  Umbran addressed this issue already.  Can we move on and actually talk about the issue?



No, of course she has the right to rage.  I, however, reject the argument that because she has a legit complaint under the broad brush (and she does) that others must ignore the sexism, racism, and stereotyping inherent in her statements and that they should be shamed into shutting up because you think her experience more than justifies the attacks.

I think what she describes is horrible, and I stand up to it every time I see it.  I've started gaming in a FLGS lately after decades of nothing but home games, and I've had to stand up once or twice due to crappy behavior by others.  She has a very real point that the hobby in general has a problem of an overabundance of crappy people and a serious overabundance of people that won't challenge the crap before it's too late.  Those are things that are worth talking about and I'm glad she's making such a stink over them.  But her choice of words are offensive to others, and the very thing we need to stand up about within the hobby.  Don't shame others into silence because they're doing what we want everyone in the hobby to do -- stand up for the dignity of all members.  That includes the white males who aren't crappy people.

We should be dealing with individuals, not groups, on both sides.



Umbran said:


> Actually, if there is widespread harassment, and the perpetrators are overwhelmingly white and male, then perhaps they have a point.  You know about "the tone argument" yes?  It is a logical fallacy - that an argument can be dismissed based on its presentation, rather than its content.



Yes, I'm familiar with how you misuse the 'tone argument'.  That hasn't worked for you, yet, why do you keep doing it?  I'm not dismissing her arguments over the tone she used.  She's angry, and deserves to be angry, and she has some great points.  My argument isn't even directed at her article, but at the argument made in this thread that saying 'not all men' is just distracting from the real important points.  It's not, it's only distracting if you think saying 'I'm not cool with your stereotyping' isn't cool.  If you're going to try to make my argument into a tone argument, which it's not, then you need to take a long hard look at your own statements about 'not all men,' because that would qualify as well.



> Dismissing them for hyperbole does nothing to resolve the real issues that are present.  If you look past the overstatement, and address the real issues, then the need to overstate the case will disappear.  Prove to them that you're listening, and they won't have to scream to be heard.  Stick your fingers in your ears and sing, "LALALA!  I'm not listening!" will tend to make them yell louder.  You are, in essence, exerting your power over them, by insisting that you will not pay attention until *your* sensibilities are not met.



Good thing that's not what I did.  And there's never a point at which a cause is noble and just enough to make a sexist and racist statement disappear.  I can criticize my side for crappy behavior even as I stand with them to challenge even crappier behavior.  There is no requirement that my side be immune from all criticism or improvement.  

I believe her experience because I've seen similar things happen.  I stand up, and I hope everyone here does as well.  Have I ignoring things I shouldn't on occasion?  Yes, shamefully, but we all are flawed and all sometimes don't think that something that's truly bothersome was more than a joke in bad taste or an accidentally bad choice of phrase.  But I get there, and in bad cases, I get there quickly.  I burned a friendship down in college because my ex-friend got comfortable enough with me to start in with some vile racist  about a classmate -- and one I didn't particularly like (personality conflicts).  I ended that friendship on the spot.  So, yeah, I bat for the right team on this.  I'm against racism in all of its forms, and that means that I'm not going to quietly tolerate it because the speaker is nominally on my side of the issue.





> Yes, it is.  However, if you are a member of a group that doesn't have to take all that much crap, then maybe it makes more sense to take some crap and get to the point, rather than get into a crap-shoveling contest.



Ah, that lovely idea, privilege.  The norm we should be working towards is that no one suffers racism, and that shouldn't include the idea that those that currently don't are privileged to not.  Yes, my daily life is free from racism, but I don't feel bad for that, I just work to make sure that my daily life doesn't cause more racism and that I correct what I can when I see it.  





> Chicken meet egg.  How do you make it so that it gets addressed on the individual level, unless you raise the issue more broadly?



There's no need to raise the issue with a sexist and racist statement.  The issue can be raised broadly without that, and if you honestly think it can't, or if you honestly think that I don't think that this is an issue that should be broadly raised, then I don't really have any reality based reasons to discuss it further with you.



> This is another answer to the "not all men" argument:  Maybe not all men, but yes *all women*.  This is not obvious to men, unless women tell them.  Men must be told _en masse_.  That's what this piece is about - another effort to inform the broad audience that the problem still exists, and men should step up to help fix it.



I agree with the statement that men should step up.  I disagree that there's a need to label all white men as terrorist because there's some crappy behavior.  Again, I don't have to accept sexism and racism in any of it's forms to combat sexism and racism.  Further, I don't have to refrain from criticism of people nominally on the same side of the fight as me.  Asking that we don't engage in the same, if lesser, forms of behavior we're fighting against doesn't weaken the fight or distract from it.  We should be striving to be better at this across the board, and not be accepting of lesser forms of it because it's combating a greater injustice.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ditto most of the public fondling issues she recounted.  What are the odds that NOBODY witnessed ANY of the occurrences...or heard an offender talk about it later?




It gets very, very difficult.  For example, a lady of my acquaintance was groped at a convention in Boston recently.  She'd gone to the club dance in the evening, and started chatting with a guy.  It seemed reasonable enough to speak with him, as he was on Security staff.  She was dressed in, "going out dancing," attire and the guy makes a comment of how she looks like she's Dominant.  She uncomfortably replied, "Um, no..." and the next thing she knows her wrists are pinned to the wall and she's getting felt up, with him saying, "Well, then you must be a Sub...."  No active consent on her part.

This was in the middle of the hall, in view of *DOZENS* of people.  And not a one of them said boo.  Onlookers assumed that is she wasn't screaming and slapping him that anything happening was consensual, and at 2 AM all the kids had gone to bed, so the ideas of acceptable public touching were a little relaxed.  And, social pressure being what it is, she didn't make a big public fuss.

She spoke to me about it afterwards.  The convention has a mechanism for people to report incidents, even if they weren't the victim.  So, I reported it for her.  It turns out that he had several complaints against him that weekend, and while no legal action was taken, he's been permanently banned from the convention.


----------



## cmad1977

Stunning. Socially inept white guys act like arsehats and feel threatened by an influx of 'the other'. 
I'm shocked. Shocked, that there is gambling in this establishment.


----------



## Umbran

cmad1977 said:


> Stunning. Socially inept white guys act like arsehats and feel threatened by an influx of 'the other'.




In the case I mentioned just above (which, admittedly, isn't gaming-specific) the man was African-American.  

My understanding is that sexism is a male-thing, not a white-male-thing.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> In the case I mentioned just above (which, admittedly, isn't gaming-specific) the man was African-American.
> 
> My understanding is that sexism is a male-thing, not a white-male-thing.




While I'll agree that in most of the world it is a predominantly male thing, rad-fem ideology shows that's it's not an only male thing.  Still, in the vast majority of cases, it's male-initiated.


----------



## cmad1977

Umbran said:


> In the case I mentioned just above (which, admittedly, isn't gaming-specific) the man was African-American.
> 
> My understanding is that sexism is a male-thing, not a white-male-thing.




Allow me to amend then: stunning, nerdy socially inept males act like asshats. Statistically, in the gaming community, these males tend to be white, though there are exceptions.


----------



## cmad1977

As a 'white male terrorist' I think she's spot on, and I don't feel particularly upset about her tone or choice of words. But then I'm not as dainty as some of the other white males in this thread.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree with the statement that men should step up.  I disagree that there's a need to label all white men as terrorist because there's some crappy behavior.  Again, I don't have to accept sexism and racism in any of it's forms to combat sexism and racism.  Further, I don't have to refrain from criticism of people nominally on the same side of the fight as me.  Asking that we don't engage in the same, if lesser, forms of behavior we're fighting against doesn't weaken the fight or distract from it.  We should be striving to be better at this across the board, and not be accepting of lesser forms of it because it's combating a greater injustice.




And this is exactly why crap against women and minorities continues.  Because straight, white men still get bent out of shape when they get "insulted" by the people who are the ones truly being insulted and assaulted.

Guess what?  Being "nice" about it hasn't gotten women or minorities JACK SHAT thus far.  Because all us straight white guys have had the... yes, PRIVILEGE... to not have to worry about it.  So when they've said for years "Hey, this crap is going on!", we've just nodded and went on our way whistling.  But now that they've stepped up and begun flinging the MILDEST of insults back at us (in comparison to what they've been suffering through for decades/centuries)... all of a sudden we're now all bruised and mad.

"Hey... you don't need to say that!  Why you have to use hyberbole and be insulting like that?"

Because it's the only F-ING WAY IT SEEMS WE'LL LISTEN!  That's why.

And yes... if your ego can't stand the idea of being yelled at that people ARE DYING because we are members of a large pool of asshats who have not and are not doing enough _right now_... then you need to suck it up.  Sorry.  It's true.  So you've been insulted.  Oh well.  JOIN THE DAMN CLUB!   The straight white male demographic is ONLY NOW... after CENTURIES... finally feeling a SMIDGEN of the hate and fear that women and minorities have been experiencing this entire time.  So we don't now get to get all bent out of shape about it.  Instead, we suck it up... we deal with it... and maybe... JUST MAYBE... instead of complaining about it we all as an entire demographic of people... we continue to work to change things.

And really, just get over ourselves if our egos are hurt.  We owe it to them to stop screaming about the splinter in our toe while everyone else is having their feet cut off.


----------



## DEFCON 1

cmad1977 said:


> As a 'white male terrorist' I think she's spot on, and I don't feel particularly upset about her tone or choice of words. But then I'm not as dainty as some of the other white males in this thread.




Exactly.  If they choice is between being called a 'white male terrorist' and actually going through the harassment that women and minorities deal with on a daily basis... I'll take the label any day.


----------



## Obryn

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree with the statement that men should step up.  I disagree that there's a need to label all white men as terrorist because there's some crappy behavior.  Again, I don't have to accept sexism and racism in any of it's forms to combat sexism and racism.  Further, I don't have to refrain from criticism of people nominally on the same side of the fight as me.  Asking that we don't engage in the same, if lesser, forms of behavior we're fighting against doesn't weaken the fight or distract from it.  We should be striving to be better at this across the board, and not be accepting of lesser forms of it because it's combating a greater injustice.



And so you've taken her story and switched the focus to talk about how she's wronging you.

Because, truly, that's the important take-away.


----------



## Ovinomancer

DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is exactly why crap against women and minorities continues.  Because straight, white men still get bent out of shape when they get "insulted" by the people who are the ones truly being insulted and assaulted.



Oh, good grief, do you actually believe that racial oppression is because people don't like being insulted?  Like, for real?  This is the corrosive nature of that mindset on display.  Any argument or criticism of the message, however warranted, is met with hot anger and calls of 'you're exactly why people are marginalized!'  It's absolutely stupid to even being to suggest that holding both sides to the same standard -- don't marginalize groups, don't paint with broad brushes, don't engage in -isms -- is somehow detrimental to the cause of reducing inequity or, god forbid, an actual cause of inequity.

I reject your mindset as harmful.  I stand up for people that are being attacked due to their race, sex, or nature, regardless of who's doing the attacking.  This usually means that I stand up against behavior directed at minorities and women, but it doesn't mean that because that's the majority of the behavior that I should or must ignore the same towards non-minority men.  If the cause is just, it's just no matter what direction it flows in.

Also, to be perfectly clear, the only comments I've made about the OP article is that what she went through was terrible and I'm glad she's bringing it up.  My comments otherwise are directed at the people in this thread who are telling other people that they're offense isn't worthwhile because of their race or sex.



> Guess what?  Being "nice" about it hasn't gotten women or minorities JACK SHAT thus far.  Because all us straight white guys have had the... yes, PRIVILEGE... to not have to worry about it.  So when they've said for years "Hey, this crap is going on!", we've just nodded and went on our way whistling.  But now that they've stepped up and begun flinging the MILDEST of insults back at us (in comparison to what they've been suffering through for decades/centuries)... all of a sudden we're now all bruised and mad.



A gross mischaracterization of my stance.  Of course their mad, and of course they have the right, even duty, to stand up and speak their anger.  I'm not telling anyone to sit down and shut up.  I'm certainly not telling the oppressed that they must limit their anger over their treatment and carefully select their words so as to not offend me.  I expect that people in bad places are mad about it and speak angrily and intemperately.  What I do say is that it's also a valid criticism to point out all -isms, and, while I accept that anger drives angry speech, that the goal here is to achieve less -isms all the way around, not just in one direction (although the most work is certainly needed in one direction).  It's about having an ideal, and expecting it to be met, not about defending my imaginary privilege.  


[quot]"Hey... you don't need to say that!  Why you have to use hyberbole and be insulting like that?"

Because it's the only F-ING WAY IT SEEMS WE'LL LISTEN!  That's why.[/quote]
Again, bullcrap.  Leveling criticism is how things get better, and mine is against the calls from the non-offended in telling others that they can't be offended because the offender had it worse.  I've been listening without being called a terrorist because I'm male.  I'm pretty white as well, but legally American Indian as well.  That's a pretty damn oppressed people, but I'm not going to shout about it in terms that increase -isms with the idea that it's so one sided that that's a good balancing technique.  We don't need to balance -isms by spreading them onto people that don't suffer them.  That's a false start.



> And yes... if your ego can't stand the idea of being yelled at that people ARE DYING because we are members of a large pool of asshats who have not and are not doing enough _right now_... then you need to suck it up.  Sorry.  It's true.  So you've been insulted.  Oh well.  JOIN THE DAMN CLUB!   The straight white male demographic is ONLY NOW... after CENTURIES... finally feeling a SMIDGEN of the hate and fear that women and minorities have been experiencing this entire time.  So we don't now get to get all bent out of shape about it.  Instead, we suck it up... we deal with it... and maybe... JUST MAYBE... instead of complaining about it we all as an entire demographic of people... we continue to work to change things.



I would wager that I do as much as you to correct things.  I also take time to point out that if we engage in -isms in our arguments, we're falling into the same trap.  After all, power shifts, and establishing that something is okay in one direction between races or sexes will result in issues when that happens.  I reject that pointing out bad behavior, even if much less bad or less impactful that other behavior, is a negative.  So long as that pointing out doesn't come at the expense of other problems, it's a net good.  Since I strongly advocate for equality and take action when I notice inequality, I'm not ignoring the problem in favor of whining about a smaller one.  I'm noting that it's an issue and it shouldn't be condoned while strongly taking a position against the kinds of injustices in the OP article.  This isn't a binary position where I'm either 100% for one side or 100% against it.  I'm for the side of stopping the crap that happened to the OP article writer while also against the -isms she chose to use in her anger.  The latter is merely at the level of noting that it's an issue and pointing out the ridiculousness of becoming angry over that statement while the former is in the 'I curbstomp to stop.'  Degrees matter, man.




> And really, just get over ourselves if our egos are hurt.  We owe it to them to stop screaming about the splinter in our toe while everyone else is having their feet cut off.



Ignoring harm to one group because you don't rate that harm as equal to the harms suffered by another group is a poor situation.  You shouldn't act to harm any group, even while fighting for the better treatment of another.  While the relative harm is, as you note, vastly separated, so is my response.  For the harm in the OP, I would not stand by and would engage in violence to stop.  For the harm of a poor choice of words while expressing anger, I note that it's not helpful and move on.  The intellectual position that any criticism of a oppressed group is tantamount to the oppression is bunk.  Privilege theory is bunk as an applied theory.  Useful in some ways theoretically, but it's application is full of the same kinds of -isms that it aims to correct.  I can be a staunch ally to the oppressed and act as I can to limit that oppression while, at the same time, criticize the dumb ideas of my allies.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree with the statement that men should step up.  I disagree that there's a need...




With respect, you are (probably) not a victim here.  Perhaps you don't get to say what's necessary.



> Again, I don't have to accept sexism and racism in any of it's forms to combat sexism and racism.




Well, we have to take that at face value, I suppose.  However, if that is true, you, personally, aren't particularly representative.  If men, *in general* acted without being given a rhetorical kick in the butt, then the issue would have been resolved long ago.  The empirical historical evidence, however, is that a certain amount of agitation seems required to get people off their butts.  



> Further, I don't have to refrain from criticism of people nominally on the same side of the fight as me.




At the moment, you are not providing *constructive* criticism.  Note that, if it didn't have the strong language, we probably would not be discussing the piece, or the topic.  So, what should the author have done instead, that would have been at least as effective?  What else would have made Ancalagon and Rechan want to post about it instead, hm?



> Asking that we don't engage in the same, if lesser, forms of behavior we're fighting against doesn't weaken the fight or distract from it.




Actually, it does both.  Look at yourself.  You are not willing to engage on the issue until the hyperbolic aspect is removed, and are willing to take up the thread to argue this point.  *You* are distracted, your efforts redirected.  

Anyone who listens to and accepts your logical fallacy is distracted and redirected, because "not all men" is, when all is said and done, an attempt to dismiss a call to action.  Anyone who wants people to engage with that call to action must, perforce, spend time dealing with the logical fallacy before we can maximize actual action.  You are distracted, we are distracted, action is weakened.  So, really, you're in the way.  

Real people, in the real world, cannot have all things.  We need to prioritize.   Do you want to prioritize your own discomfiture, and that of other men?  Is that the priority here?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> She spoke to me about it afterwards.  The convention has a mechanism for people to report incidents, even if they weren't the victim.  So, I reported it for her.  It turns out that he had several complaints against him that weekend, and while no legal action was taken, he's been permanently banned from the convention.




Good.  At the very least, that's the kind of action that needs to be taken.  It's also a great illustration as to what happens when people actually do speak up, even if only as witnesses.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Ovinomancer said:


> I reject your mindset as harmful.  I stand up for people that are being attacked due to their race, sex, or nature, regardless of who's doing the attacking.




Yes, the #AllLivesMatter argument.  The idea we need to stand up and defend everybody when they've been injured regard of the _degree_ to which they've been injured.

You may think that's noble... but I will be quite frank when I say that I think that is less than _helpful_.  And when you divert attention from the people who NEED the help to make sure that the people don't really need it still feel a-okay... you basically ARE going back to kick in the face of the people in need.  Because we each only have SO MUCH TIME AND FOCUS to keep our eyes on our fellow men and women.  We can only do SO MUCH.  And thus, it behooves us to spray the firehose on the house that is actually on fire and burning down, rather than the one with the flaming bag of dogcrap on the front porch.

In a perfect world... yes... it'd be great if we could all refrain from insulting each other.  Great of you to point it out.  But guess what... that kind of attitude ain't working.  And if all that is left is for us straight, white guys to get reality slapped in our face repeatedly in hopes of waking us up... the least we can do is bite the bullet and take our lumps.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Oh, good grief, do you actually believe that racial oppression is because people don't like being insulted? Like, for real?




I would say that the oppression proceeds the discussion, and- whether said discussion includes inflammatory rhetoric or not- is aided and abetted by the fallacious "tone" rebuttal.  In this- and in other areas of discourse- when people get insulted, they tend to stop listening to the merits of the positions of others.

Rhetorically, it is a fine line to tread between identifying culprits that overwhelmingly meet a certain description without it being misinterpreted (by all sides) as a vilification of ALL who fit that description.  We see it in all kinds of phrases that pop up in modern politics.  See "dog whistle."

The key is, in part, being a more discerning listener.

But the "tone" rebuttal?  It is a fallacy- how someone complains about a problem does not minimize or nullify the problem's existence, nor addresses how that problems should be handled.  It is kind of the judo version of the "ad hominem" attack, ignoring the substance of the claim by starting a tangential convo about how it was said.  It is worthless.

Just imagine going to the ER with a compound fracture of your leg, and being told by the attending physician that you won't be treated unless and until you stop screaming and crying so much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yes, the #AllLivesMatter argument.  The idea we need to stand up and defend everybody when they've been injured regard of the _degree_ to which they've been injured.
> 
> You may think that's noble... but I will be quite frank when I say that I think that is less than _helpful_.  And when you divert attention from the people who NEED the help to make sure that the people don't really need it still feel a-okay... you basically ARE going back to kick in the face of the people in need.  Because we each only have SO MUCH TIME AND FOCUS to keep our eyes on our fellow men and women.  We can only do SO MUCH.  And thus, it behooves us to spray the firehose on the house that is actually on fire and burning down, rather than the one with the flaming bag of dogcrap on the front porch.
> 
> In a perfect world... yes... it'd be great if we could all refrain from insulting each other.  Great of you to point it out.  But guess what... that kind of attitude ain't working.  And if all that is left is for us straight, white guys to get reality slapped in our face repeatedly in hopes of waking us up... the least we can do is bite the bullet and take our lumps.




Noted:


----------



## DEFCON 1

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Noted:
> 
> View attachment 76021




Where do you think I was getting my metaphor from?


----------



## Maggan

I feel that the post linked in the thread start is important. To me it is important to read accounts like this, regardless of tone.

Because I am not the target of the described behaviour, I need other people to explain to me what it looks like, what it feels like and what the consequences are. If strong language is involved, so be it. I need to learn more to make sure I don't inadvertantly enable the behaviour described.

Being more aware of this will not detract from my enjoyment of this hobby, and might enhance the enjoyment others get out if it. A win-win situation for me.

/Maggan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DEFCON 1 said:


> Where do you think I was getting my metaphor from?




Just in case there were some unfamiliar with it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Ancalagon said:


> Thank you [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]
> 
> So... what can we do, as individual gamers?  Well... I know this part:
> 
> 1:  don't be a creep/harasser/rapist
> 
> 2:  Try to let go of sexist ideas, and specifically the notion that RPGs is a "guy thing".  When I was young I just assumed that RPGs were a guy thing, same way GI-JOEs were a guy things and dolls a girl thing.  (And yes, GI-JOEs *are* little dolls...).  There is absolutely no reason why women shouldn't be about 50% of pen and paper RPG gamers.  None.
> 
> 3:  Listen to women.  If a woman tells you "I feel this art is demeaning" don't argue with her.  If you don't get it, ask her why (and TONE of voice is important here people).   As a white guy, I don't get to decide if using the N word is offensive, and I don't get to decide if a piece of art is offensive to women.   And if a woman tells you she's been harassed or worse, for the love of god do something.
> 
> 4:  If another guy does or says something creepy, call them out on it, EVEN if there are no women present.  When a rapist makes a rape joke around other guys, he's gauging the audience.
> 
> But apart from that... I don't know?




I think you pretty much nailed it.  "Don't do it yourself, be aware of when others do it, and don't tolerate when others do it" really just sums up my personal standards about harassment and other offensive behavior.

When I was younger, I had a friend who turned skinhead.  The first time he tried to bring that rhetoric up while I was hanging out with him, I told him (and this is paraphrased), "Look.  You can believe that stupid racist BS all you want, but if you bring it up around me again then we're through being friends.  Now, are we going to keep playing D&D?  Or do I need to call my dad to come pick me up?"

He never brought it up ever again.  The friendship ultimately didn't last more than another year, but I like to think that while it did last hanging out with me gave him a way to associate with people who weren't actively engaged in hating others, possibly helping him doubt the stupid stupid things he had come to believe.


----------



## was

..When I read this article, I was absolutely shocked and appalled.  I have been gaming for nearly 24 years and have never seen this sort of offensive behavior.  IME, male gamers tend to be more timid in approaching women.  I also game with women, both young and old(er), and have never heard of such sexual misconduct from them.  Maybe it's a regional thing, the midwest being more conservative and such.

..If these criminal instances are not the product of an aspiring writer, then they need to be addressed immediately.  It's outrageous that any authority would be so dismissive of such serious crimes.  Especially in these litigious times and with the prevalence of social media.  In my past work experiences, both civilian and military, just the accusation of such sexual misconduct was enough to destroy a career.

..IMO, no gamer should tolerate the harassment of a fellow gamer.  We face enough abuse from outside the community to tolerate it from within.


----------



## Umbran

was said:


> ..When I read this article, I was absolutely shocked and appalled.  I have been gaming for nearly 24 years and have never seen this sort of offensive behavior.




Don't be too sure.  Look at the anecdote I gave above.  Dozens of people present, and apparently *nobody noticed*.  Part of the issue is that we tend to be blind to such an event, even when it happens right in front of us.  And by "blind" we should include, "overlooked, or didn't pay attention" and "interpret events as being more innocent than they are".



> I have a hard time believing that any authority would be so dismissive of such serious claims. Especially in such litigious times and with the prevalence of social media. In my past work experiences, both civilian and military, just the accusation of sexual misconduct was enough to destroy a career.




Yes.  Now, note something again about my story.  The woman in question didn't want to report it herself.  I asked if I could report it for her, and she only agreed to it after some discussion.  The reluctance is common.

Go look up how women are often treated when they do report such things - the dire consequences lead to pushback, blaming the victim, and so on.  Women who report such treatment are often then treated very, very badly.


----------



## was

Umbran said:


> Part of the issue is that we tend to be blind to such an event, even when it happens right in front of us.  And by "blind" we should include, "overlooked, or didn't pay attention" and "interpret events as being more innocent than they are".




..I think that you might have an even more pessimistic view of humanity than my own.  Lack of attention is the only plausible argument that I could possibly accept as feasible.  I don't think that any of the incidents described could be interpreted as 'innocent' nor would the obvious discomfort of the young woman allow any reasonable person to 'overlook' such a criminal event.



Umbran said:


> Yes.  Now, note something again about my story.  The woman in question didn't want to report it herself.  I asked if I could report it for her, and she only agreed to it after some discussion.  The reluctance is common.
> 
> Go look up how women are often treated when they do report such things - the dire consequences lead to pushback, blaming the victim, and so on.  Women who report such treatment are often then treated very, very badly.




..I must concede that point.  Not being familiar with the young woman in question, or with such crimes, I cannot reasonably argue that point.  What I can say with confidence, is that the female gamers that I know would definitely report it.  I also *know* that the male gamers I have played with would stop such behavior, 'when observed', and would back the ladies up if they made such a report.


----------



## Gradine

Maggan said:


> I feel that the post linked in the thread start is important. To me it is important to read accounts like this, regardless of tone.
> 
> Because I am not the target of the described behaviour, I need other people to explain to me what it looks like, what it feels like and what the consequences are. If strong language is involved, so be it. *I need to learn more to make sure I don't inadvertantly enable the behaviour described*.
> 
> Being more aware of this will not detract from my enjoyment of this hobby, and might enhance the enjoyment others get out if it. A win-win situation for me.
> 
> /Maggan




The emphasis above is my own, and probably the most important takeaway from articles such as these for people with a degree of privilege. There's a tendency, for example, for men to expect women to dominate any discussion about misogyny and harassment in any social setting. But as Umbran has been illustrating, there's a host of reasons why women would not feel safe playing the role of educators. For another example of this in action, see: the internet. Just all of it. In its entirety (okay, see Youtube, Twitter or Reddit if you feel you need a few places to start).

There's a reason why it's so important for men to educate themselves (and other men!) about these issues, because harassment does not end until men stop harassing. That means seeking out, reading and discussing articles such as these. It means speaking out against misogynist behaviors and attitudes that tend to exist male-only or male-dominated spaces. It means seeking out, reading, and starting discussions about articles such as these. It means calling other men out for trying to derail such discussions (see: this thread!) and it means also not letting such derailments dominate the discussion (see: ...)

I usually twinge whenever I see threads like this appear in online gaming communities, but this thread so far and this community give me hope that positive change is actually possible. Of course, then I read about things like the reaction to Beamdog's new Baldur's Gate II expansion and I realize how we still have so very far to go.


----------



## Libramarian

was said:


> ..When I read this article, I was absolutely shocked and appalled.  I have been gaming for nearly 24 years and have never seen this sort of offensive behavior.




I think the events in the article are fictional and intended to illustrate the author's feeling of being intimidated by hate mail.

I 100% believe that anonymous death threats to feminist game critics do happen, and that is a serious problem. I don't have a solution to that. That's not something that we can fix with public opprobrium. I know the author of the article hates it when other gamers tell her to go to the police, but they are usually the best resource for crimes with unknown perpetrators.

I can't support the notion that we at enworld need to discuss this and change our behavior. IME gaming communities are literally the least intimidating white male-dominated communities around. Compare this forum to a motoring or bodybuilding forum some time.


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> I think the events in the article are fictional




What on earth would prompt you to call the writer a liar?



> I can't support the notion that we at enworld need to discuss this




This is a discussion form. We discuss things. That's the whole point of it.


----------



## Libramarian

Morrus said:


> What on earth would prompt you to call the writer a liar?




I didn't call her a liar! I said I think the events in the ++++ sections are fictional. I don't know to what extent the author intended for people to realize this or not. I say this for three reasons:
a) they're completely implausible
b) they're inserted into the article without any preamble or clarification about their veracity
c) the author is a fanfic writer and they read like fanfic


----------



## Hussar

Dunno.  Sound pretty darn plausible to me.  

But, I'm wondering.  Why would you think that this is not an issue that should be discussed on a gaming forum?  The behaviour of gamers is something that's been discussed at length.  Whether it's "that disruptive guy at my table" or lengthy Agony Aunt style threads talking about how the group imploded under the weight of some incredibly asinine behaviour.  Why shouldn't this issue be raised?

I'll admit, I don't think I've seen this.  But, then, I almost never played at public forums and I've spent the last 15 years pretty much exclusively gaming online via VTT.  But, even then, I've seen some pretty uncomfortable behaviour.  Heck, I remember being cyber stalked by a former player who I had to give the boot to.  He harassed me for months, all via private mail on the forum we were using and through the creation of alt accounts to threadcrap our game threads.  So, I can certainly see this sort of thing happening.

Heck, I used to be a regular on an old forum called PlanetADnD.  Great forum for a while until one of the mods decided he had a serious hate on for me and endlessly harassed me until I left the forum.  And I was hardly the first user to get treated like that.  Was the main reason I can to En World because the mods here are pretty even handed.  

So the idea that these same sorts of people might harass women in the hobby isn't much of a stretch.


----------



## Morrus

Libramarian said:


> I didn't call her a liar! I said I think the events in the ++++ sections are fictional.




Well that's a distinction which defeats my little brain.


----------



## MechaPilot

Libramarian said:


> I didn't call her a liar! I said I think the events in the ++++ sections are fictional. I don't know to what extent the author intended for people to realize this or not. I say this for three reasons:
> a) they're completely implausible
> b) they're inserted into the article without any preamble or clarification about their veracity
> c) the author is a fanfic writer and they read like fanfic




They don't read as fiction to me.  They read as experiences to me, hence the author's use of "I am. . ." in most of those sections.  That the author also writes fanfiction is irrelevant to whether the experiences in those sections are real.  If she is a writer, fanfic or otherwise, she has likely found her literary "voice," which will impart similarities of style into everything that she writes.  Also, the things related in the ++++ sections are given some preamble: each item in the ++++ sections relate to the point(s) made in the preceding paragraph(s).  It's similar in use to citing sources in other forms of writing, only the author is citing personal experiences.


----------



## MechaPilot

MechaPilot said:


> They don't read as fiction to me.  They read as experiences to me, hence the author's use of "I am. . ." in most of those sections.  That the author also writes fanfiction is irrelevant to whether the experiences in those sections are real.  If she is a writer, fanfic or otherwise, she has likely found her literary "voice," which will impart similarities of style into everything that she writes.  Also, the things related in the ++++ sections are given some preamble: each item in the ++++ sections relate to the point(s) made in the preceding paragraph(s).  It's similar in use to citing sources in other forms of writing, only the author is citing personal experiences.




Edit: And, even if they were fiction (which I don't believe that they are), that doesn't matter.  A lot of the good works of science fiction frequently exist to get people to think about and discuss the questions raised therein.


----------



## Umbran

Libramarian said:


> a) they're completely implausible




Upon what do you base that assessment?  You are, perhaps, an expert on crimes against women that you can verify that such things don't happen?

If your answer begins, "No, but...," I suggest you be very careful about what comes after that but.  The credibility of the rest of what you say depends on it.  

I'll drop a line to a friend of mine, who is on staff at a major sci fi convention.  I'll see if she can give me the number of harrassment reports the con got last year.  Maybe that number will make it seem more plausible.



> b) they're inserted into the article without any preamble or clarification about their veracity




The work surrounding it is not fiction.  So, in the absence of clarification, you have two options:

1) She stays non-fiction throughout.  
2) She strays back and forth between fiction and non-fiction without warning or explanation.

Occam's Razor applies.



> c) the author is a fanfic writer and they read like fanfic




You are a gamer.  So, if you report to me an event in which you got mugged, should I take it that is actually just a gaming war story, that it didn't really happen?

Thank you, Libramarian, for presenting a pretty solid example of the uphill climb women have in reporting harassment and assault.  Disbelief.  Claims she's making things up.


----------



## Libramarian

Hussar said:


> But, I'm wondering.  Why would you think that this is not an issue that should be discussed on a gaming forum?



I said I don't think it _needs_ to be discussed. OP said "I don't have a solution, but I think we have to talk about this". I was disagreeing with that. I don't think we have to talk about it. I think white male gamers are less intimidating to women and POC than typical western white men, and this forum in particular is quite civil and inclusive for a hobby community. The concrete problem is anonymous hate mail and death threats sent to feminist critics; we're not likely to come up with a solution to that here. 


Morrus said:


> Well that's a distinction which defeats my little brain.




Lying involves an intent to deceive. I'm hesitant to call her a liar  because I don't know what her intent was. When things like this blow up  and go viral people tend to treat them like an op-ed in the NYT, when  it's just a post on someone's personal blog. She should write  whatever she likes on her blog.

Actually the claim she does have to substantiate is that Wyrd Miniatures staff members have been threatening her. I've never heard of them nor the game Malifaux, but that's a serious accusation. She should be able to prove that easily so I hope justice is swiftly achieved.



MechaPilot said:


> They don't read as fiction to me.



Perhaps they're inspired by real events, but I thought the dialogue in the story about the aboriginal woman was especially preposterous.


----------



## Obryn

Libramarian said:


> I said I don't think it _needs_ to be discussed. OP said "I don't have a solution, but I think we have to talk about this". I was disagreeing with that. I don't think we have to talk about it. I think white male gamers are less intimidating to women and POC than typical western white men, and this forum in particular is quite civil and inclusive for a hobby community. The concrete problem is anonymous hate mail and death threats sent to feminist critics; we're not likely to come up with a solution to that here.



I really don't get what you're trying to say here?



> Lying involves an intent to deceive. I'm hesitant to call her a liar  because I don't know what her intent was. When things like this blow up  and go viral people tend to treat them like an op-ed in the NYT, when  it's just a post on someone's personal blog. She should write  whatever she likes on her blog.
> 
> Actually the claim she does have to substantiate is that Wyrd Miniatures staff members have been threatening her. I've never heard of them nor the game Malifaux, but that's a serious accusation. She should be able to prove that easily so I hope justice is swiftly achieved.
> 
> Perhaps they're inspired by real events, but I thought the dialogue in the story about the aboriginal woman was especially preposterous.



It's weird that a response to a post in part about how reports of abuse and harassment in the gaming community aren't taken seriously, is met with a response that amounts to not taking her seriously.

Would an article validating what she's saying about her employment experience and court case help us move past this little bit where you're doubting her integrity?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Libramarian said:


> Perhaps they're inspired by real events, but I thought the dialogue in the story about the aboriginal woman was especially preposterous.




This?



> ++++
> It is 2009 and an aboriginal woman is looking at the metal miniatures on the wall. My co-worker helps her as I stock the display shelves.
> 
> “Do you have any models that look like me?” the woman asks.
> 
> “We only have normal models,” my co-worker titters, “I can order you the noble savage.”
> 
> The woman leaves. We never see her again.




Dude, I've been on the woman's side of that conversation more than once, occasionally nastier.

Now, in my case, I knew that the salespersons in question were not mocking me because I knew some of them socially outside of the store, and the others were minorities themselves.  IOW, I knew some were kidding, while some were being rueful.

That woman probably did not have either of those factors operating in her favor.

And here's the thing: sometimes it is easy to forget that a joke made between friends may not play well with strangers.

Was the salesperson being deliberately hurtful?  Can't say.  But she was still hurtful.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Obryn said:


> Would an article validating what she's saying about her employment experience and court case help us move past this little bit where you're doubting her integrity?



What a delusional little troll Tackaberry is.  Acts as his own attorney, dredges up irrelevant trauma inflicted upon the person suing him, loses the case, and then complains the proceedings were unfair because he didn't have a lawyer.

I would LOVE to see an appelate-level judge look at his case and keep a straight face.


----------



## SunGold

Libramarian said:


> I said I don't think it _needs_ to be discussed.




That's fine; feel free to show yourself out of the thread.

This thread went on for five pages before you arrived, so clearly people are getting something out of it. If you aren't, there are many, many other threads you could go contribute to instead.


----------



## billd91

Libramarian said:


> I think the events in the article are fictional and intended to illustrate the author's feeling of being intimidated by hate mail.




I doubt they're fictional - possibly a composite of her experiences and the accounts of other women who have related them to her. But I've heard enough similar accounts to give them the air of believability.


----------



## Umbran

Libramarian said:


> I said I don't think it _needs_ to be discussed. OP said "I don't have a solution, but I think we have to talk about this". I was disagreeing with that. I don't think we have to talk about it.




Imagine, for a moment, that this were not a virtual forum.  Imagine you were sitting in a room with the female gamers of this forum.  You look them in the eye, in person, and tell them, "I don't think what happens to women in gaming is bad enough that we need to discuss it."  I wonder how that would fly.



> I think white male gamers are less intimidating to women and POC than typical western white men...




"We aren't as bad as others, so we get a pass!"  Really?  We don't have to work to be better so long as others are worse than us? 



> and this forum in particular is quite civil and inclusive for a hobby community.




That makes it an *excellent* place to discuss the matter.  We have a greater proportion of people who may be turned from passive, "I am not actively increasing the problem," to active, "I do things to reduce the problem."



> The concrete problem is anonymous hate mail and death threats sent to feminist critics; we're not likely to come up with a solution to that here.




All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

And no, that's not the only concrete problem.   A friend of mine was working for a woman game-writer who had to move out of her apartment because she got doxxed and threatened - that's problematic.  But, the woman I know groped at a con was problematic.  A woman entering a game shop getting *stared* at like she was the gunslinger stepping into the saloon is problematic.  A woman being accused of making up stories of abuse is problematic.  *All* the incidents she lists in that article are concrete problems. 

The people who send those mails, and make those threats, do not do so in a vacuum.  They do so in the midst of a lingering culture that supports such activity.  That culture has its basis in the smaller forms of harassment and discrimination that still exist.  And those, we don't have to tolerate.  When there's a game store that allows behaviors like those described, they should have *men* standing up and telling their local communities that this is not okay.  



> Lying involves an intent to deceive. I'm hesitant to call her a liar  because I don't know what her intent was.




I think you are on thin ice here, and will have to do some impressive rhetorical gymnastics to get, "She wrote an apparently non-fiction piece describing events that did not happen, *without* intent to deceive."  In the context of the piece, those vignettes are present to drive home the point that harassment and discrimination happen.  If those events did not happen (at least to *somebody*, if not the primary author), that's "make people believe these things are happening, when they don't," which is deception, and thus lying.

I'm about to say something that may make you, and others, uncomfortable.  

As we discuss if she's presenting untruth, we should consider why we might reject the factual truth of her statements.  Because we *do* have possible motives:

1) If what she reports are true events, then we may have to admit that a group we *identify with* is not as nice as we like to think.  Since we identify with it, we tend to think this is an accusation that we, personally, are not as nice as we like to think.  We, quite naturally, will look for reasons to accuse the other person of flaws, rather than admit our own.  Humans quite frequently and demonstrably rationalize to attribute faults to others, rather than accept them in ourselves.

2) If what she reports are true events, we are presented with a moral/ethical responsibility - as good people we should not allow these things to occur.  If what she describes is real, then we should *do* something, we should take action.  And who in this world really wants more responsibilities, more work - especially work that some of our peers may not like our taking on?  We, generally, will tend to seek for reasons why we might not have to take on that responsibility.  That fastest way to avoid that responsibility is to question her veracity.

So, we have emotional and practical reasons to *want* to reject her presentation.  We need to be very careful about that.  These are some of the things that make us blind to mistreatment of others.


----------



## nedjer

It will begin to change for real when publishers and designers act to remedy the situation; which relies in part on players and GMs adopting a preference for content which gets, and stays, beyond toys for boys gaming.


----------



## Mallus

nedjer said:


> It will begin to change for real when publishers and designers act to remedy the situation; which relies in part on players and GMs adopting a preference for content which gets, and stays, beyond toys for boys gaming.



I XP'd you for the super-cool astronaut pic, but could you expand on this?

The problem with sexism and outright criminal harassment is an enormous one. You can't solve it by playing the right games. Whenever I talk about these problems in the nerd-o-sphere with my non-nerd wife, she reminds me that this happens to women everywhere they go. Any convention, their job site, the street. It's culture-wide. Also, as my friend to used to DM for more than one group of ass-kicking women gamers, gendered notions of what content women prefer are another part of the problem (whew... I almost said problemat... damnit!).

edit: and any large problem is best dealt with by breaking it into more manageable chunks. Or chunks that drive you into less anger & despondency.  

Here's one simple suggestion (that I'm sure has been suggested before). Only attend cons & gaming stores with solid harassment policies and adequate staff to enforce them. If said con or store costs more, accept it, and feel good you're supporting a business that's trying operate ethically.


----------



## evileeyore

Umbran said:


> Note that, if it didn't have the strong language, we probably would not be discussing the piece, or the topic.



It's terrible that it takes a clickbait title to get your notice enough to talk about serious issues.


----------



## nedjer

Mallus said:


> I XP'd you for the super-cool astronaut pic, but could you expand on this?
> 
> The problem with sexism and outright criminal harassment is an enormous one. You can't solve it by playing the right games. Whenever I talk about these problems in the nerd-o-sphere with my non-nerd wife, she reminds me that this happens to women everywhere they go. Any convention, their job site, the street. It's culture-wide. Also, as my friend to used to DM for more than one group of ass-kicking women gamers, gendered notions of what content women prefer are another part of the problem (whew... I almost said problemat... damnit!).
> 
> edit: and any large problem is best dealt with by breaking it into more manageable chunks. Or chunks that drive you into less anger & despondency.
> 
> Here's one simple suggestion (that I'm sure has been suggested before). Only attend cons & gaming stores with solid harassment policies and adequate staff to enforce them. If said con or store costs more, accept it, and feel good you're supporting a business that's trying operate ethically.




Wasn't really thinking in terms of 'right' games so much as presenting alternatives on a variety of levels. If you pull someone up over 'mild' sexism there tends to be defensiveness/ being seen as laying down rules; still necessary but it does little to change opinions. However, if as DMs we put a bit of thought into gender roles when making a campaign then players may choose to spend many hours in a setting where instead of an Overlord running a city it's an Overlord in debt to a group of female merchants , , , That could be constructive in itself; but might also allow consideration of how the balance of power and influence would act on 'solid harassment policies' within the city. No need to draw up a 7 page legal code; but a PC who started groping women in public could hardly expect to act with complete impunity.


----------



## Umbran

evileeyore said:


> It's terrible that it takes a clickbait title to get your notice enough to talk about serious issues.




Me, personally?  I'd been discussing the general issue *months* ago, when I took on a role in security for my local live-action role playing game convention.  I can go into some of what we were taught about rape and sexual assault, if you like.  I noted upthread the issue my friend had at a sci fi convention - I discussed it with her at great length, and with friends after that.  Having noted my general interest, someone had passed a link to the article in the OP to me some time before it came up here.  And, before this thread started, one of our users came to me privately to discuss whether a thread like this was okay, or would be considered politics.  Oh, and I discussed some of this with one of my players, who was considering bringing a gender-neutral character into my new Ashen Stars campaign...

So, I, personally, have been engaged with the topic.  Just not on EN World.

On EN World, nobody to my knowledge has started such a thread to discuss the topic for several months.  WE, as a group, on EN World, would likely not be discussing it now if this article hadn't been written.  And that's okay - it isn't like everyone can be constantly engaged on all topics that are troublesome at all times.  We have to have jobs, and live our lives, and such.  And that's part of why sometimes you need something like this article, that raises an issue above the constant noise of everyday life.  It is good to have your attention focused on something especially from time to time.


----------



## Libramarian

Obryn said:


> Would an article validating what she's saying about her employment experience and court case help us move past this little bit where you're doubting her integrity?



That helps yes, thanks for the link.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dude, I've been on the woman's side of that conversation more than once, occasionally nastier.



I admit that on my reading I didn't consider that the co-worker could be trying to make a friendly but ill-considered joke. That's more plausible. I read it like they were being aggressively abusive to someone they just met.


----------



## Libramarian

Umbran said:


> Imagine, for a moment, that this were not a virtual forum.  Imagine you were sitting in a room with the female gamers of this forum.  You look them in the eye, in person, and tell them, "I don't think what happens to women in gaming is bad enough that we need to discuss it."  I wonder how that would fly.



Well, I don't infantilize women, so I imagine they could handle it? It's just my opinion after all.



> "We aren't as bad as others, so we get a pass!"  Really?  We don't have to work to be better so long as others are worse than us?



I think it's important to maintain perspective.



> That makes it an *excellent* place to discuss the matter.  We have a greater proportion of people who may be turned from passive, "I am not actively increasing the problem," to active, "I do things to reduce the problem."



I'm all for that! As long as "the problem" is operationalized and a solution-focused approach is taken. Posting a message of support or outrage in a thread like this, which the author of the article likely won't even read, is just slacktivism IMO. I find it especially repellant when the poster seems mostly interested in showing off how unthreatened they are relative to other white men. That sort of thing belongs in a private browsing window, if you get my meaning.



> The people who send those mails, and make those threats, do not do so in a vacuum.  They do so in the midst of a lingering culture that supports such activity.  That culture has its basis in the smaller forms of harassment and discrimination that still exist.  And those, we don't have to tolerate.  When there's a game store that allows behaviors like those described, they should have *men* standing up and telling their local communities that this is not okay.



No. They send those threats because they're psychopaths. Nothing about gaming culture supports them in doing that. I'm generally in agreement with Christina Hoff Sommers about this; there's no connection between masculine gaming content and misogyny and sexual harassment. That's just as spurious as the idea that violent videogames breed violent people. The removal of chainmail bikinis from gaming art has prevented no incidences of harassment. The culture war going on in gaming between feminists and gamers who enjoy masculine content has no connection to real world violence.



> I think you are on thin ice here, and will have to do some impressive rhetorical gymnastics to get, "She wrote an apparently non-fiction piece describing events that did not happen, *without* intent to deceive."  In the context of the piece, those vignettes are present to drive home the point that harassment and discrimination happen.  If those events did not happen (at least to *somebody*, if not the primary author), that's "make people believe these things are happening, when they don't," which is deception, and thus lying.



My opinion is the author created the vignettes (either out of whole cloth or loosely based on real events) to illustrate what this sort of discrimination looks like, for the purpose of generating empathetic insight. I'm not going to vilify her for this (as long as she's not accusing real people of anything) but I am going to share this opinion when I see people getting depressed by it and hating themselves for being gamers, or for being men.



> I'm about to say something that may make you, and others, uncomfortable.



That was thoughtful, but I'm confident that the reason I'm skeptical about the article is because it's bizarre, not because I'm threatened or experiencing moral fatigue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Libramarian said:


> I admit that on my reading I didn't consider that the co-worker could be trying to make a friendly but ill-considered joke. That's more plausible. I read it like they were being aggressively abusive to someone they just met.




While I was offering other possibilities for that conversation's content, it's still possible the salesperson was being racist.  After all, of there were no racist gamers, there would be no RaHoWa RPG.


----------



## Libramarian

nedjer said:


> It will begin to change for real when publishers and designers act to remedy the situation; which relies in part on players and GMs adopting a preference for content which gets, and stays, beyond toys for boys gaming.



This is absurd. There's nothing wrong with masculine gaming content ("toys for boys"). No correlation has been shown between it and real life misogyny and harassment. This is like saying racism will begin to change for real when white people stop using sunscreen and listening to country music.


----------



## Elf Witch

Over the years I have had this conversation with other women on why we didn't report or make stink about someone harassing us. One of the biggest reasons is that we don't want to call attention to ourselves and end up in the situation of being judged. We have all known or heard stories of a woman who speaks up about harassment say at their jobs and then even if they can back it up they go through hell and it often is the kiss of death of your career at that company or in that field. 

A lot of harassment is not witnessed and it becomes he said she said and you risk being called a liar your story gets judged just like this woman was by a poster here. We are raised to keep the peace don't make a fuss and sometimes it is easier to just try and ignore it or tell ourselves that it was not that bad. 

It is a bad enough to be groped or raped and then have to tell your story to people looking to poke holes in it. To face the judgement of what did you do to put yourself in this position. Why were you at a frat party, why were you dressed in a reveling cosplay costume at a con. 

Go onto any board about how cosplay does not equal consent and you will see dozens of angry posts from men claiming that these women are only complaining about ugly guys that they don't mind attractive guys hitting on them. It is the same if you post a video of a woman walking down the street and all the comments directed at her. Men will cry what is wrong with telling her she looks pretty completely missing the point. 

I have two female roommates and we were discussing the really annoying thing of men telling us to smile.  What gives a perfect stranger the right to dictate to anyone else how to express how they feel? I lost it one day at some guy who told me that. I had just found out that my best friend was dying and I was sitting on a bench waiting for my son to come out of a store. But even if I was just tired or in a bad mood I don't owe a stranger anything. It is the same when a complete strangers says hi and then gets mad if you don't respond. 

My experience at the game store sent a message loud and clear don't make waves. 

And even when we do report it we often face what my friend faced with the security guard at the con where her daughter was blamed for bending over to take a drink. 

You know that this is being discussed on other boards and not all of them are as civil as here. I believe that is because this board is is moderated on a forum that is not then it very quickly becomes a toxic place for any woman and man who speaks up.  Words like femnazi and SJWs starts getting thrown around. Most women don't want to wade into that quagmire to try and explain why this is harmful.


----------



## Elf Witch

double post


----------



## Elf Witch

Libramarian said:


> This is absurd. There's nothing wrong with masculine gaming content ("toys for boys"). No correlation has been shown between it and real life misogyny and harassment. This is like saying racism will begin to change for real when white people stop using sunscreen and listening to country music.




I think that depends if the game setting is set up in away that there are no female NPCs in power and the only female NPCs are there to be used for the male PCs as sex objects the lusty tavern wench or to be rescued and given as a reward to the male pC the whole rescue the princess and you get to marry her. Then you are setting up a game where female players are made to feel not welcomed and you are giving the message to the male players that this is their hobby so why should they go out of their way to make it welcoming for women.

It may not lead to misogyny and sexism in the male players entire life but the subtle message is there boys club girls stay out.

It is the same if all the NPCs are white then people of color may not feel welcomed. It subtle but the message even if that is not what the game designer intended is there.


----------



## Ancalagon

I'm not sure what is meant by "masculine gaming content" when it applies to tabletop RPG?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ancalagon said:


> I'm not sure what is meant by "masculine gaming content" when it applies to tabletop RPG?




Two 20 siders in a fuzzy dice bag and a stubby wax pencil?








You know...to hi/lo mark the 20 siders.


----------



## MechaPilot

Libramarian said:


> My opinion is the author created the vignettes (either out of whole cloth or loosely based on real events) to illustrate what this sort of discrimination looks like, for the purpose of generating empathetic insight. I'm not going to vilify her for this (as long as she's not accusing real people of anything) but I am going to share this opinion when I see people getting depressed by it and hating themselves for being gamers, or for being men.




No one should hate themselves for being men or gamers, and I don't think the examples are intended to make men or gamers hate themselves for simply being men or gamers.  The only things related to the article that people should hate themselves for is engaging in, tolerating, or covering up harassment, and blaming, shaming, or threatening victims of harassment (particularly those who speak up).


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> At the moment, you are not providing *constructive* criticism.  Note that, if it didn't have the strong language, we probably would not be discussing the piece, or the topic.  So, what should the author have done instead, that would have been at least as effective?  What else would have made Ancalagon and Rechan want to post about it instead, hm?




I took one look at the heading with white terrorists in it and the tone of the first few paragraphs and clicked close.  Had the hyperbole and attacks against all men not been in there, I would have read the whole thing.  That sort of language drives away a lot of people who would otherwise be interested.



> Anyone who listens to and accepts your logical fallacy is distracted and redirected, because "not all men" is, when all is said and done, an attempt to dismiss a call to action.  Anyone who wants people to engage with that call to action must, perforce, spend time dealing with the logical fallacy before we can maximize actual action.  You are distracted, we are distracted, action is weakened.  So, really, you're in the way.




It's not wrong or even bad to be defensive when attacked.  Her attack on "all men" warrants a defense of "not all men."  It doesn't make her wrong for speaking out, but any distraction caused by men being defensive can be traced back to her generalized attack.

She can use strong language to get her point across without attacking people who are innocent.  There would be a lot less distraction and a lot more support if she had done that.



> Real people, in the real world, cannot have all things.  We need to prioritize.   Do you want to prioritize your own discomfiture, and that of other men?  Is that the priority here?




Human nature is human nature.  We defend ourselves when attacked.  The best way to avoid that is not to attack people.  She was attacked and so she is defending herself.  However, she in her response is attacking innocent men and so they are defending themselves.  Yes, it's a distraction, but it's not one that is going to go away so long as she keeps attacking the wrong people.


----------



## MechaPilot

was said:


> ..When I read this article, I was absolutely shocked and appalled.  I have been gaming for nearly 24 years and have never seen this sort of offensive behavior.  IME, male gamers tend to be more timid in approaching women.




I agree with your point that male gamers tend to be more timid when approaching women.  However, my personal experience requires that I throw in some caveats:

1) Gamers of different types are different.  It has been my experience that video gamers are bolder than card/board/ttrpg gamers.

2) If you get similar people together as a group, even those who are normally more timid, they feel safer and get bolder, which can approach a mob mentality in some instances.





was said:


> ..IMO, no gamer should tolerate the harassment of a fellow gamer.  We face enough abuse from outside the community to tolerate it from within.




There are not enough +1, thumbs-up, and Xp buttons on the internet for me to show my proper level of agreement with that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Actually, she didn't attack "all men", she attacked "white male terrorists"*.  Being a PoC, I'm not in her sights.

Don't get me wrong- PoC males can be just as sexist as white males.  And the are women sex offenders as well.  But this hobby is demographically overwhelmingly white and male (at least in the USA).  I'm 48 years old, been playing RPGs since 1977 in 3 states and 5 different cities- two of which are among the USA's most populous- and I've only encountered 3 other black gamers (all male, FWIW).  I know more women gamers than minorities...but not many.

IOW, the statistical probability that a sexual assault offender within the hobby is going be a white male is pretty much a guarantee.








* and those who are complicit by silence and inaction.


----------



## MechaPilot

Elf Witch said:


> I would like to make a comment on the subject of art in gaming. One of the things that has always bothered me was the pin up art for female PCs. I have nothing against pin up art I always thought Vargas's pin ups were sexy. But there is a time and place for it.
> 
> The litmus test for me is this would you dress a male PC in this and would you put them in that pose? If the answer is no then don't do it for a female. I am no talking about fantasy art work in general just gaming  there is room in art for sexy beefcake and cheesecake but unless the PC is a succubus/incubus or they ply their trade in seduction why are we dressing female PCs as some kind of sexual fantasy.
> 
> And yes I know some women like that and want their female PC to run around in a chainmail bikini and that is fine and they go on the internet and find plenty of artwork to represent their PC. I just think that it is a turn off for a lot of female players and does not belong in artwork in game books.





To address the depiction of women in gaming art, these are my feelings on the subject:

I think that the women in gaming art should be depicted with the same level of competency, badassery, and common-sense-dress as the males.

I like pinup art of both men and women, and I don't have an issue with a little bit of both being present.  It's only in cases where there is only pinup art of one and not the other, or the pinup art is predominantly of one and not the other, where it starts to bother me.

Also, it's important to make the distinction between male pinup art and male wish-fulfillment art.  The muscly loincloth-clad barbarian is not male pinup art.  There are some women who enjoy that, but the majority of women show a preference for the swimmer's build over the bodybuilder's build.  The bodybuilder look is male wish-fulfillment.  And while that's not a bad thing at all (all escapist forms of entertainment should have some form of wish-fulfillment art for all genders), people shouldn't mistakenly count it as balancing female pin-up art.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

FWIW, my Mom prefers slightly chubby and fuzzy.

Which brings up another thing- most of the (human) male protagonists in fantasy art are not just bodybuilder types, but they're fairly hairless caucasians as well.  Not too many Friar Tuck types in modern genre art...


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> FWIW, my Mom prefers slightly chubby and fuzzy.
> 
> Which brings up another thing- most of the (human) male protagonists in fantasy art are not just bodybuilder types, but they're fairly hairless caucasians as well.  Not too many Friar Tuck types in modern genre art...




There are definitely a lot of varied preferences.  For example, I heard something on the radio a month or so ago about the slightly overweight "dad body" being somewhat popular.  And there's certainly regional influences as well.  For example, I recall hearing that Japanese women found hairy men to be rather exotic and attractive.

However, it's generally been my experience that for me and most of the women I know, the preference is more toward the toned but not overly muscular build found in classical statuary such as Michelangelo's David.


----------



## Caliburn101

This one is not straightforward to judge.

Before I express my opinion on the thread - I want to be clear on my own position on what it raises first.

Firstly - I love women round the table. I actively encourage it. I normally GM and find as a man in this position that I enjoy the different dynamic of the female mind and the (for me as a male) less predictable ways a female player will have their character approach resolving  problems or encounter. I also try make sure that players wanting to play people of the opposite sex are those capable of doing so without slipping into sexist cliché. I've seen that passively offend, and frankly it makes my left eye twitch to see it. I also recently withdrew as GM from a game at an RPG club due to sexual-stereotyping proxied through a female player's character which she was uncomfortable with. I told the organisers, and I apologised to the woman that it had happened 'on my watch' even though I couldn't really do anything about it when it happened.

Second - I have roleplayed since it was invented, and LARPed pretty much the same. I have encountered increasing numbers of women in both as the years have gone on, and this has generally made the hobby richer and more enjoyable.

I have witnessed only four other instances of sexism or sexually inappropriate behaviour in all that time, and two of the instances were dealt with appropriately. One was ignored in very much the same way as described the blogger, and in one the culprit was a woman. Twice these events involved police, who on both occasions acted quickly and appropriately.

I have been gaming for 37 years, I regularly do conventions and have LARPed for 20 years.

So I have to ask myself why I haven't seen much of this? I think the problem is 'selection bias' - and it is something everyone should try to take into account as they consider their own experiences. After all - the common thread of any experience you have is that YOU are the one there - and in 'RPG-land', you are commonly around your friends, and one doesn't make friends with people one doesn't like...

... so.

Let us assume for one moment that the blogger at the other end of the OPs link is a young, attractive woman - and thus will attract more unexpressed sexual attention than the average.

Let us also assume (as seems to be the case from  the examples) that this most often occurs at open gaming days in shops and at conventions - and thus there is a larger gaming population to be found in immediate proximity.

Let us of course assume (because it is true) that the majority of gamers are male.

This makes it more likely that (a) there will be at least one maladjusted male in the vicinity, and (b) that the woman will attract their attention and perhaps a follow-up action like those described.

On a probability basis this all seems sound.

There is some 'sample bias' evident in the blog however. I would expect a mixture of 'don't know how to react' responses, 'he's my mate and I need to cover for him', and even reputational defence reactions from organisers now and again... but the complaints to police going undealt with, seemingly without exception?

That doesn't match my experiences - and my own 'sample bias' did not affect that one iota. I have to say that I also do not appreciate the male stereotyping the angry voice of the blogger descends into by implication - but I can understand it. We all go overboard to some degree when angry, so I'll leave that there.

But I do have to consider that as a white male, ex-military, confidently outspoken and the kind of person who will unhesitatingly speak out and act the MOMENT I see a hint of this sort of nauseating behaviour (my friends are similar, and the people around me generally know my opinions on this...) that I roleplay with people who agree with me on this, and elsewhere walk around in a bubble of 'don't try that near _this_ guy'.

So applying logic to this analysis, the only reasonable course is to assume that I suffer from my own 'sample bias'.

I haven't really thought about this sort of thing from such a point of view before, and I suspect the vast majority of us haven't.

I think we should, and apart from making a firm commitment to stamp on this when we witness it, and to go out of our way to ensure it is dealt appropriately, we also need to go a step further.

At conventions, big meets, game shops and of course in our own games - include a reference or two (in anecdotal style at the very least) to what we think of such behaviour, how offensive it is and how utterly unacceptable we find it.

On the one hand this will send a clear message to those hearing it, that they have 'permission' to express the same if they witness something (putting this into the mix early means 'shock' inaction or excuse-making is far less likely). On the other hand, the gutter-minded types will know that they need to keep their pathetic urges or bigoted opinions firmly to themselves if they don't want to suffer the consequences...

We shouldn't give a rat's ass whether our fellow rpg'ers are male, female, black, white, liberal, conservative, atheist, agnostic, religious, straight, gay, undecided, trans-sexual or whatever, and you know why...?

 ... because we are about to step into a world where different races, religions, cultures, monsters, magic and other damn strange stuff interacts on a daily basis, usually staring in a pub, and ending in the kind of place you would never consider retiring to because of the violent crime rate being above the national average...

'Preventative maintenance' of a universally open and accepting environment in which we can all go to that world without dragging in real-world prejudice into it requires our active involvement even if we are passively paragons of virtue ourselves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> There are definitely a lot of varied preferences.  For example, I heard something on the radio a month or so ago about the slightly overweight "dad body" being somewhat popular.  And there's certainly regional influences as well.  For example, I recall hearing that Japanese women found hairy men to be rather exotic and attractive.
> 
> However, it's generally been my experience that for me and most of the women I know, the preference is more toward the toned but not overly muscular build found in classical statuary such as Michelangelo's David.



And tastes change over time, and standards vary from culture to culture.  See the term, "rubenesque". 

Do you know who was third in the Mr. Universe competition of 1950?  Sean Connery.  Here's how he looked in 1965's _Thunderball_:




DAD BOND!


----------



## S'mon

Ancalagon said:


> It is with a heavy heart I post this link.




Is there any RPG board this has *not* been posted to? It even got posted on Dragonsfoot! Thankfully the mods there locked it. 

I guess it is a good way to demonstrate board culture - a quick peek at the end of the thread here shows fairly temperate posts; theRPGsite has heavy condemnation of lying SJWs, and I shudder to think what's on RPGnet. 

Overall though I think this counts as a troll post designed to provoke maximum reaction.


----------



## Ancalagon

S'mon said:


> Is there any RPG board this has *not* been posted to? It even got posted on Dragonsfoot! Thankfully the mods there locked it.
> 
> I guess it is a good way to demonstrate board culture - a quick peek at the end of the thread here shows fairly temperate posts; theRPGsite has heavy condemnation of lying SJWs, and I shudder to think what's on RPGnet.
> 
> Overall though I think this counts as a troll post designed to provoke maximum reaction.




So... hmmm.

1:  If it was posted on every board but here, I think that was a good reason for me to post it no? 

2:  Why was it a good thing that Dragonsfoot locked it?  

3:  What was the troll post - hers, mine... or yours?


----------



## nedjer

Libramarian said:


> This is absurd. There's nothing wrong with masculine gaming content ("toys for boys"). No correlation has been shown between it and real life misogyny and harassment. This is like saying racism will begin to change for real when white people stop using sunscreen and listening to country music.




At what point did I say there was a correlation? As for crying absurd - you appear to have confused correlations with causation while offering up your straw person 

You even go on to demonstrate this with your ludicrous false comparison. You didn't do any science did you; you much prefer he who shouts loudest - you are a child.


----------



## Umbran

nedjer said:


> You didn't do any science did you; you much prefer he who shouts loudest - you are a child.





You are not going to post in this thread again.  I hope that's clear - by stooping to this, you have removed yourself from the discussion.

For everyone else - name calling will not be tolerated.  KEEP IT CIVIL.  

Any questions?  Take them to e-mail or PM.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I took one look at the heading with white terrorists in it and the tone of the first few paragraphs and clicked close.  Had the hyperbole and attacks against all men not been in there, I would have read the whole thing.  That sort of language drives away a lot of people who would otherwise be interested.




Yep.  I already noted that the author's approach was flawed, back on the first page of the thread.  

However, the author of the piece is likely not reading this, so critique of her style is, to be honest, not terribly constructive.  And, as already noted, dismissing the piece for its tone is a logical fallacy.  So, on both points we are better served by moving beyond that.



> It's not wrong or even bad to be defensive when attacked.  Her attack on "all men" warrants a defense of "not all men."




You are being asked to set aside for a moment whether it "warrants" defense - that's about *your* rights, *your* feelings, putting focus on *you* as a victim.  



> It doesn't make her wrong for speaking out, but any distraction caused by men being defensive can be traced back to her generalized attack.




And, her perceived need to use that generalized attack to get attention is traced to... something that could have been prevented, if we were as good as we like to think. If we applied pressure to our peers, if we actually helped deal with the situation, our own feelings would need less defending, as she'd not feel a need to write the piece!  So, you have a choice - focus on her presentation, or the root cause of the problem. 

We (men) took an entirely rhetorical slap, that many of us did not deserve, sure.  Meanwhile, women are getting groped and routinely abused. 

By all means, continue on about how wrong the rhetorical device was... if you think that's the real priority.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Maxperson said:


> I took one look at the heading with white terrorists in it and the tone of the first few paragraphs and clicked close.  Had the hyperbole and attacks against all men not been in there, I would have read the whole thing.  That sort of language drives away a lot of people who would otherwise be interested.
> 
> It's not wrong or even bad to be defensive when attacked.  Her attack on "all men" warrants a defense of "not all men."  It doesn't make her wrong for speaking out, but any distraction caused by men being defensive can be traced back to her generalized attack.




Do you consider yourself a "white male terrorist"?  If the answer is 'Yes', then okay, I can understand getting defensive about her comments.

But if you don't consider yourself a "white male terrorist"... then you don't fall into the category of people she was insulting, and thus there should be absolutely no reason to feel defensive.   She wasn't talking about you.

But if you (the general 'You') DO feel defensive when she calls out "white male terrorists" and have to always go "Hey man, it's not me, I'm not like that!"... I'm willing to bet its because you *do* feel a bit of guilt when she brings stuff like that up.   As a result, perhaps you aren't as free from blame in the situation as you might want to believe.  You might not actively DO the things that she's defining as white male terrorism... but if you're doing nothing whatsoever to help or fix it, you're passively allowing it to happen.  Whether or not (general) you get defensive about that says a whole lot about who you are as a person.

Speaking personally... I try to behave as well as I think I can.  I also know I don't go nearly that far out of my way to actively _help_ situations when I could.  So yeah, the privilege I have as a straight, white, man to basically ignore all of this crap means I am tacitly guilty.  So the question comes down to whether or not I feel guilty (or get defensive) when I'm called out on it.  And for me... I'm luckily quite capable of not identifying with any group so closely that an insult to the group is an insult to me (again due to my privilege).  If someone insults all white people and say we are not doing enough to help racism in this country... I don't take it personally.  If someone insults all straight people and say we are not doing enough to help homophobia in this country... I don't take it personally.  If someone insults all gamers and say we are not doing enough to help other gamers who are being crapped upon in this country... I don't take it personally.  The only time I'd take it personally would be if someone said _to me_ "Hey, Fish... you had a chance to help out here in this situation and you didn't do it.  That was a crappy thing."  At which point, yes, THEN I might be within my rights to get defensive... but hopefully at the same time my compassion and empathy would kick in and I'd instead take a good hard look at what I did or didn't do, and whether I needed to apologize and/or learn from the mistake for the future.


----------



## cmad1977

Any men who are offended may have the appropriate anatomical parts but certainly aren't behaving in a particularly masculine way about it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rottle

I don't know if I agree with the idea that as long as there are scantily clad males ( of whatever type we agree those who enjoy ogling men prefer) that it is ok to have scantily clad females.   I mean if it doesn't belong well adding something else that doesn't belong really doesn't make it any better.  For me I would like to see the art make sense.   If art of a scantily clad man makes sense, then add it with no need to balance that with a female dressed similarly.  If the reverse do that.  To me artificial balance leaves a bad taste and I just want sense to rule the day.

just as an aside so I don't come off as a prude or whatever I enjoy scantily clad females much as others, but in my gaming material its not needed or wanted unless it makes sense.   

All that said to me harassment isn't about art so much as it is about interactions between people and it should never be tolerated.  Stand up to those who harass, stand with those harassed, and never let it simply pass by unchallenged.   

"Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday"....John Wayne


----------



## billd91

Caliburn101 said:


> I have been gaming for 37 years, I regularly do conventions and have LARPed for 20 years.
> 
> So I have to ask myself why I haven't seen much of this? I think the problem is 'selection bias' - and it is something everyone should try to take into account as they consider their own experiences. After all - the common thread of any experience you have is that YOU are the one there - and in 'RPG-land', you are commonly around your friends, and one doesn't make friends with people one doesn't like...




I think that there are other issues that might come in here other than selection bias, particularly in group situations like conventions, parties, or busy stores. One I can think of is situational awareness. A lot of people just haven't developed much of it and what they have is probably more focused on their own security and not in assessing threats to other people. Then there is the issue of crowds - the bigger the crowd, the more we focus on our own conversations and interactions, not the interactions going on or the needs being expressed around us. How can someone get away with groping or acting in a threatening manner toward a woman in an area with witnesses? Not just because nobody comes forward for whatever reason (assuming it's consensual, assuming that someone else will take care of it, not wanting to get involved, whatever), but because most people honestly don't really notice it. It's happening over there and not where their focus is.




Caliburn101 said:


> I think we should, and apart from making a firm commitment to stamp on this when we witness it, and to go out of our way to ensure it is dealt appropriately, we also need to go a step further.




I think one step forward we could and take is to spend some time to actively watch for it and commit to reporting it. I don't mean to patrol for it like Batman through Gotham City, but with some downtime at a con, just sit back and people-watch. Observe how people act around cosplayers, around women, around people who give off a different vibe for any reason. You may not notice anything particularly serious or blatant - but you may still notice some unpleasant behaviors that aren't strictly harassing but could still make for an unwelcoming environment. I'll probably do a bit of this at the Madison ComicCon this weekend.


----------



## Beleriphon

billd91 said:


> I think one step forward we could and take is to spend some time to actively watch for it and commit to reporting it. I don't mean to patrol for it like Batman through Gotham City, but with some downtime at a con, just sit back and people-watch. Observe how people act around cosplayers, around women, around people who give off a different vibe for any reason. You may not notice anything particularly serious or blatant - but you may still notice some unpleasant behaviors that aren't strictly harassing but could still make for an unwelcoming environment. I'll probably do a bit of this at the Madison ComicCon this weekend.




Let us know how it goes.

My personal experience is that I don't go to Cons, I don't visit stores regularly. The ones I do don't have creeps, and if somebody ever tried harrassing the only woman that games with my group (my wife) would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a framing hammer.

As for the article, I don't think each one of the listed experiences is a personal one of the author, but rather a compilation of personal experiences and those from other women. That said, finding out she lives in Winnipeg I wouldn't honestly be that surprised, especially on the police side of things. The city has an unfortunately high crime rate, particularly violent and sexual crime.


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, she didn't attack "all men", she attacked "white male terrorists"*.  Being a PoC, I'm not in her sights.




Presumably I am.  Which makes it very hard for me to say anything that is in any way constructive, since the first thing I have to prove is that I'm not a "white male terrorist".

I think that unfortunately, everyone is going to end up speaking past each other on this issue.  And it's not just owing to the overly aggressive tone the essayist adopts.  It's just that we come from completely different worlds.

I read an essay about how a woman has been sexually assaulted, including multiple physical assaults, up to and including rape as many as a dozen times while involved in the gaming community, and I'm appalled and fully understand - even as I disagree with it - why she'd think of gamers as white male terrorists.  Seriously, all that's happened to you?  Ok, I can make allowances for your feelings in that case.  You'd have to be a saint to maintain your emotions with that sort of background.

But at the same time, that's just not where I come from, either as a man who is less likely to be victimized in this way, or as the spouse, friend, or father of female gamers.  Her stats show that 25% of women gamers report sexual harassment, and a non-trivial fraction report physical harassment.  But that means that like 75% of them don't.  They may experience some sexism or discrimination in other ways, but their experience - and the experience their female friends may have - don't reflect this woman's experience.  Her experience is certainly more common than it should be, and really is inexcusable, but it isn't necessarily universal.  

The sort of sexism that I think more common in the circles I've gamed in, looks nothing like what she describes.  I feel confident in saying that in either of the high school groups I was in, the way sexism would have manifested itself would have been in competing to see which of us could beat the crap out of whomever offended a woman in our vicinity to show how masculine we were.  We might not in any way conform to the SJW ideal, whatever that is because it seems to very depending on who you talk to, but you could have been quite confident that if you got harassed within arms length of any of us, that it would have provoked a roll for initiative and not silence or complicity.  Masculine posturing maybe, but not complicity.  And now, most gamers I know are married with daughters of there own, and the first thing that enters into our mind reading something like that is along the lines of, "If anyone talks to my 13 year old that way, there will be body bags."  

I don't know of the culture she talks about, and that's the honest truth.  The very existence of it shocks me, coming from a background where profanity wasn't used publically except as a warning that actual violence was about to occur - and even then never in mixed company.  The closest I've ever had a brush with that was I went over to another gamer's house to play a game, and he referred to his live in girlfriend (already slightly shocking to my standards) affectionately and to her face by a word that has never come out of my mouth to refer to a woman.  The real culture shock for me was she seemed ok with this, and didn't need someone to hit him in the face.  I was terribly confused and uncomfortable, and needless to say decided not to pursue that friendship further.

Traditional?  You bet.  Sexist?  In the sense that I'd probably respond at least a little differently to a woman the object of violence than I would a man, maybe so.  But I'm finding it a bit odd and ironic that there is this sudden call for chivalry after having heard for the last 20 years how darn sexist chivalry is.  And I'm finding equally odd that the essayist thinks the solution is men stepping up and speaking out against this sort of behavior when we see it (as if someone needs to tell me that you don't tolerate violence against a woman in your presence) and yet also apparently thinks calling those same men "white male terrorists" is an effectual way to rally support.

If this really is this prevalent, and I walk into Origins or GenCon with a lady with me and I should expect this sort of vile human filth to come crawling out of the wood work, then I'm going to have to evaluate my future plans.  Because I suspect security is going to take a dim view of my temptation to 'smite evil', and I really don't want to subject my daughters to such a scene.  So I'd really like it if some people were honest about whether this is the real view women have of such conventions, and such places are really this dangerous.  Because hitherto, the only person I've ever known to have been sexually or physically assaulted at a convention - a story I admittedly heard in second person, but had no cause to disbelieve - was a man, by a drunk woman during a LARP that got a bit out of hand at DragonCon.


----------



## MechaPilot

I largely agree with much of what you wrote, but I sectioned a couple pieces off for a special mention.




Celebrim said:


> Presumably I am.  Which makes it very hard for me to say anything that is in any way constructive, since the first thing I have to prove is that I'm not a "white male terrorist".




Well, there is nothing wrong with being of any ethnicity or gender, so you really don't have prove that you are not white or male.  If you felt the need to prove anything, it should only be the not a terrorist part, because the other two adjectives are not bad things to be.

And that's not to say that you need to prove you are not a terrorist before saying anything constructive.  The things you say and do will illustrate your character to those who witness those words/actions.  Or, to put it another way, a bad tree will not bear good fruit.




Celebrim said:


> And I'm finding equally odd that the essayist thinks the solution is men stepping up and speaking out against this sort of behavior when we see it (as if someone needs to tell me that you don't tolerate violence against a woman in your presence) and yet also apparently thinks calling those same men "white male terrorists" is an effectual way to rally support.




As I read the article (or essay, or whatever one wants to call it), I didn't get the impression that she was calling all gamers white male terrorists.  The ones who sent death and rape threats clearly were/are terrorists though, because they were trying to weaponize fear against her simply because she stood up for her right to not be harassed.


----------



## Celebrim

MechaPilot said:


> As I read the article (or essay, or whatever one wants to call it), I didn't get the impression that she was calling all gamers white male terrorists.  The ones who sent death and rape threats clearly were/are terrorists though, because they were trying to weaponize fear against her simply because she stood up for her right to not be harassed.




First, it was the essayist that wrote: " I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to...", and the rest censored out.  So yes, as a white male, she puts the burden on me to prove I'm safe and not what she now (perhaps understandably) first assumes of all white men she is with.  And likewise, yes, the article is a call to assume the worst of all white men until they prove otherwise that they are "safe".  And many in this conversation have read or treated it as such, even going so far as to assert that denial was proof of guilt.  

I tend to be very conservative with regards to how I use the word 'terrorist' (surprise, surprise) in that the word has been very broadly misused over the last 15 years or so as the word has been more and more in the national conversation (for better or worse).  I don't think 20 years ago, anyone would have accepted the idea that simply terrorizing someone made you a terrorist nor do I think she would have reached for that word.  While nailing down a definition of terrorism everyone is willing to agree to is always hard, certainly that casual loose usage of the word wouldn't have been accepted in the national security or geo-political community.

I strongly prefer that the word terrorism be confined to a military tactic that involves making total war against the weakest members of your opponent in order to convince them that the costs of waging war with you will be too high, or to otherwise engage in asymmetrical warfare against a superior foe by attacking those foes least able to resist you.  This can then be understood in the framework of Westphalian nation states and challenges to them, as well as Clauswitzian escalation of force (and depravity), and we can then have a meaningful conversation about what is normally called terrorism rather than labeling virtually all violence and threats of violence (uselessly) terrorism to the point the word loses any specific meaning.

Comparison of people to terrorists has become as lazy as comparing people to Hitler.   It both trivializes an issue that should be serious, and obscures and muddles the conversation, both about sexism (in this case) and terrorism.  Since terrorism refers to a deliberate act of war, to suggest that her abusers are terrorists is to suggest that the proper and reasonable response to their acts of terror is to make war on them using actual military force.  Bad as the abuse she has received is, and as terrorizing as it may be to her or in its intent, I don't think terrorism is the right paradigm to put it under.  

And even to the extent that you don't agree with that definition of terrorism, the fact that the definition of terrorism is itself so controversial and such a hot button issue, suggests invoking it is not very useful to your cause.


----------



## Rottle

I think this artical is getting in the way at this point.

Lets instead focus on harassment in the gaming world.  

Lets agree to stand together against it whenever we see it.

Look out for each other, speak up for what is right, make our community better one small voice at a time.

To me that's all we need, just each of us trying.


----------



## Elf Witch

I really wish she had not used the term white male terrorist because it has clouded the conversation. But I understand why she did it. When you have been marginalized or harassed and it has been at the hands of a member or members of the majority who has the privilege and sometimes protection that comes with that a lot of pent up anger and frustration. There is also the fact that provocative titles makes your blog post stand out from the thousands of others. 

You see this kind of thing when a person of color who speaks up about the racism they have faced and uses the term white people instead of some white people. Instead of just looking at the person experience many feel the need to defend the people who are not like this. If you are not a racist, sexist jerk then why do you feel the need to defend and deflect from the point being discussed? As a white person I had to develop a thicker skin when reading stories of racism. My first inclination was to defend myself and say I am not like that not all white people are like that. Then I realized no one is saying that we are and anyone who actually believes that has a lot of anger and bigotry of their own that need to work through.


First, it was the essayist that wrote: " I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to...", and the rest censored out. So yes, as a white male, she puts the burden on me to prove I'm safe and not what she now (perhaps understandably) first assumes of all white men she is with. And likewise, yes, the article is a call to assume the worst of all white men until they prove otherwise that they are "safe". And many in this conversation have read or treated it as such, even going so far as to assert that denial was proof of guilt. Celebrim wrote that and I had to get up walk away after reading it to think of way to respond.

I was livid at first at his complete blindness of what it means to be a woman then I calmed down and realized well he is a man and his experiences will be very different than mine.  You see women are taught from the time they are children that we need to be wary of men we don't know that we need to protect ourselves from being raped. We are taught not to meet a strange guy any other place than a public one and to make sure someone knows where we are. We are taught to watch our drinks and never take one from a stranger. We are taught to use the buddy system we we go to bars and never drink with men you don't now and if we break that rule and get raped then a lot of people including women believe you asked for it by not being more careful. So we are basically taught that all men have the potential to be rapists and to be safe that is how we should look at them until they prove not to be.

I have been playing since the 1970s and I still have some anxiety when I join a table with men I don't know anything about. I am a little worried that I might be harassed that I will ave to deal with sublte sexism in the form of a DM or other players ideas of the realistic way to show a female PC. I have seem one to many times rape used as backstory or hinted at to outright described by DMs who some how don't know better or can't grasp why a female player may not want to deal with that in game. Then there are the DMs who feel the need to stick a female PC who is sexually active with a pregnancy.  Unless the player is interested in that why go there? I have had arguments with DM on this with them taking the stand that since it is not a technological world there is no birth control. I have even had an argument with a GM in Shadowrun over this with him saying no birth control is 100%. 

I have run into the guys who really don't want to play with a woman but are in the minority at their table and they make it unpleasant sometimes very openly and sometimes subtly. And often the other players either don't realize it or don't want to cause trouble or are waiting for the DM to do something about it. 

So yeah my experiences have taught me to be a little wary. Is that really surprising?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> First, it was the essayist that wrote: " I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to...", and the rest censored out. So yes, as a white male, she puts the burden on me to prove I'm safe and not what she now (perhaps understandably) first assumes of all white men she is with.



News flash: it isn't just women eying white guys with suspicion.


I'm a black male born in Louisiana and living in Texas. Have done most of my life. Some of my hobbies- gaming, going to heavy metal concerts, etc- are extremely Caucasian-centric. While I'm a pretty easy going guy and like to think the best of people, I would be lying to you if I told you that I don't become more hyper-alert around unfamiliar white males than around any other group.  I don't live in fear, but I do live with _caution_.


I usually can't just look at a white dude and tell if he's racist unless he's being obvious about it. I don't think all white guys are neo-Nazis & klansmen- quite the opposite, I think most people AREN'T racists, even white guys- but I can't simply dismiss the possibility that the ones I'm just meeting might be.  Like the old Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify."


----------



## Umbran

Elf Witch said:


> So yeah my experiences have taught me to be a little wary. Is that really surprising?




Not at all.  It is pervasive.

There's a major car commercial on the airwaves right now, in which they boast of the car's "teen driver technology".  In one version of the commercial, a middle-aged man asks the company representative, "Will it tell me how many boys get in the car with my daughter?"  This is supposed to be a throwaway, comedic line, to make the people examining the car seem human.

But think about that for a second - the father's major concern about his girl driver is her interaction not with the car, or the road, or other drivers, but with boys.  The _boys are a hazard_ that should be monitored, that she needs to be protected from.


----------



## Balesir

DEFCON 1 said:


> Do you consider yourself a "white male terrorist"?



I hate to be picky on this, but I didn't read that there at all - I read the claim that there is a "white male terrorism problem" in gaming, and I think that is absolutely supportable.

Just as with other "forms" of terrorism, a significant part of what supports and sustains the terrorism is the unchallenged belief among the real terrorists that they have a passively supportive "culture" or constituency that they are the (possibly somewhat outspoken and aggressive) warriors for. In this fantasy, they may be more outspoken than the rest, but they are just the assertive section of this supposed "culture" that are "standing up for the rights" of the group as a whole.

In this sense, the problem indeed is with all (white) males*. Unless all of us (I am male, and white) make it crystal clear that the only "culture" that we belong to is one that includes *all of the people in this hobby*, and that there is a place for you in this culture if and only if you *treat them all with respect and consideration*, then the hobby will continue to have such a problem. We have to deny the idea that there is a "white male culture" that is somehow benefitted by misogynistic actions and/or that silently condones and protects those who engage in them, or we give succour to the phenomenon and perpetuate it.

So, I see no claim that "all white males are terrorists", here. I see a claim that there is a problem with the (perceived) existence of an exclusive "white male culture" that condones and protects misogynists. And I think that claim is accurate. The solution is to make it cease to be so.


*: I use parentheses here because I'm not convinced that, for the specific issue of sexism, the "white" bit is terribly relevant. For the racist issue, on the other hand, I'm not sure the "male" bit is all that germane, either, so it's not a big deal.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> Not at all.  It is pervasive.
> 
> There's a major car commercial on the airwaves right now, in which they boast of the car's "teen driver technology".  In one version of the commercial, a middle-aged man asks the company representative, "Will it tell me how many boys get in the car with my daughter?"  This is supposed to be a throwaway, comedic line, to make the people examining the car seem human.
> 
> But think about that for a second - the father's major concern about his girl driver is her interaction not with the car, or the road, or other drivers, but with boys.  The _boys are a hazard_ that should be monitored, that she needs to be protected from.




I have a theory about that.  I've speculated before that some fathers of daughters are overprotective when it comes to boys because of their own past.  They recall the things they did with/to the women they've been with and have an aversion to considering boys doing those things to their daughters.

On a more practical front, there's also the pregnancy concern.  Nothing says kiss your career and education goals goodbye like an unwanted and unprepared for pregnancy, especially a teen pregnancy, and most especially when the father doesn't want any part of raising the kid or supporting the kid and/or the mother.  And that doesn't even touch the financial and other strains on the rest of the family, who the teen mother will have to rely upon for at least some of her and her child's support.


----------



## MechaPilot

Elf Witch said:


> First, it was the essayist that wrote: " I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to...", and the rest censored out. So yes, as a white male, she puts the burden on me to prove I'm safe and not what she now (perhaps understandably) first assumes of all white men she is with. And likewise, yes, the article is a call to assume the worst of all white men until they prove otherwise that they are "safe". And many in this conversation have read or treated it as such, even going so far as to assert that denial was proof of guilt. Celebrim wrote that and I had to get up walk away after reading it to think of way to respond.
> 
> I was livid at first at his complete blindness of what it means to be a woman then I calmed down and realized well he is a man and his experiences will be very different than mine.  You see women are taught from the time they are children that we need to be wary of men we don't know that we need to protect ourselves from being raped. We are taught not to meet a strange guy any other place than a public one and to make sure someone knows where we are. We are taught to watch our drinks and never take one from a stranger. We are taught to use the buddy system we we go to bars and never drink with men you don't now and if we break that rule and get raped then a lot of people including women believe you asked for it by not being more careful.




That's very true.  I think a lot of men don't understand the rules that women get raised with.  While the vast majority of men are not criminals who are going to sexually violate a woman, the truth is that any man a woman meets could be such a person, and that women are taught to be cautious.  Rightfully so.  After all, if you get mugged you can always cancel your credit cards and earn back the money you lost, but a victim of sexual assault can never be un-assaulted.  She can try to overcome the trauma, probably through expensive therapy and a significant investment of time and effort, but it's going to have devastating effects on her personal relationships, especially relationships with a husband or boyfriend, where sex is a generally expected part of the relationship (and that doesn't even address issues that arise when disease or pregnancy results from the assault).

And the blame aspect that you mentioned is especially shameful.  We don't accuse mugging victims of flaunting their wealth, or carjack victims of driving too nice a car, or home invasion victims of having too nice a home.  And even if we did, that would in absolutely no way hold water as any kind of judicial escape hatch for the mugger, carjacker, or home invader.  However, when it comes to victims of sexual harassment or violence both men and women on juries are often swayed, or at least influenced, by the victim's attire, sexual history, etc.


----------



## Elf Witch

MechaPilot said:


> That's very true.  I think a lot of men don't understand the rules that women get raised with.  While the vast majority of men are not criminals who are going to sexually violate a woman, the truth is that any man a woman meets could be such a person, and that women are taught to be cautious.  Rightfully so.  After all, if you get mugged you can always cancel your credit cards and earn back the money you lost, but a victim of sexual assault can never be un-assaulted.  She can try to overcome the trauma, probably through expensive therapy and a significant investment of time and effort, but it's going to have devastating effects on her personal relationships, especially relationships with a husband or boyfriend, where sex is a generally expected part of the relationship (and that doesn't even address issues that arise when disease or pregnancy results from the assault).
> 
> And the blame aspect that you mentioned is especially shameful.  We don't accuse mugging victims of flaunting their wealth, or carjack victims of driving too nice a car, or home invasion victims of having too nice a home.  And even if we did, that would in absolutely no way hold water as any kind of judicial escape hatch for the mugger, carjacker, or home invader.  However, when it comes to victims of sexual harassment or violence both men and women on juries are often swayed, or at least influenced, by the victim's attire, sexual history, etc.




I know that the majority of men are not rapists but and yes there is a but I still worry about having a repair man in if I am home alone or seeing a man I don't recognize out and about when I am walking my dogs especially if it is late. And I feel some anxiety when I have been broken down or had a flat tire and a man stops to render assistance. 

As a mother of a son who is now an adult I admit that it hurts my heart to think that some woman out there might look at him in fear. He is a big guy 6 2 and burly. I know he would never in a million years assault a woman.

I don't think this will ever change because I think there will always be be twisted monsters who prey on other people. 

What men need to take from this is an understanding of why women are like this and instead of getting offended by it and taking the attitude of why do I have to make an effort to prove I am one of the good guys they show some patience and give us a chance to know they are one of the good guys.


----------



## Celebrim

Is it surprising that you'd be wary around strangers, and especially around strange men?  Not at all.  Seems completely reasonable to me.  But as I said from the beginning, I'm also not at all surprised that we are just talking past each other on this.  

I tried very hard to forestall this walling off response, about how I didn't understand what it was like to be a woman where that was made the substance of the rebuttle of what I said, or the whole of the understanding of it.  And, sure, in the sense that I was watching rather than participating when my children were born, there are some experiences unique and particular to being a woman that are quite beyond my imagination to grasp.  But it's not that sort of experience we are talking about.  Despite my many asides to concede the reasonableness that being a woman might give you a different perspective, here we are.  So let's take this more directly head on.

It's not beyond a man's capacity to walk a mile in a woman's shoes or visa versa.  Men and women are gifted with fantastic imaginations, and intellects, and likewise we also share in common experiences of being marginalized, of being threatened, of being victimized, of being bullied, of being harassed, and in some cases of being brutalized.  What is needed is more discussion over what we have in common, rather more lines drawn around us to separate us into little tribes.

I'm well aware of what women are taught and arguably need to be taught about being safe around men, and avoiding being alone with strange men, and so forth.  I have to do the job of teaching it.

You managed to make yourself livid over your assumption of my blindness despite all the effort I took to forestall that by admitting that we had very different experiences, and in part that those experiences were because I was a man.  All that was admitted up front.  And her anger and suspicion of me and anyone that looks like me were conceded as reasonable from her background many times in my writing.  There is I admit truth to the fact that people can come from different places, and experience different things.  And while there is some truth to the statement that we can never know exactly what it is like to be someone else, I firmly believe that it is also true that that is not an absolute barrier to our compassion and understanding of one another.  And I likewise believe that it is good to act on the hope that other can relate and sympathize with our struggles and our difficulties and all the hardships we've endured as people, not merely as men or women.



Elf Witch said:


> I really wish she had not used the term white male terrorist because it has clouded the conversation.




I do too.



> But I understand why she did it.




I do too, and said as much.



> When you have been marginalized or harassed...




Ultimately, it doesn't matter why you've been marginalized and harassed.  It doesn't hurt less to get marginalized and harassed because you are a woman or because you are autistic nerdy white boy with a deep tan and a Caribbean accent in a rural Southern town where many people have never had the resources to go more than 30 miles from where they were born.  The majority is just whoever outnumbers you, which when you are in a community of one, is everybody.  And privilege and protection is not something that is particular to a skin color, but can be simply just being the popular kid.  Telling someone about privilege of being white or male while they are getting kicked bloody by a half dozen black men four to six years older than you simply because they've been taught to feel threatened by white people, and maybe even with legitimate reason, but this is a scrawny white kid no body will protect who they can take that frustration out on.



> You see this kind of thing when a person of color who speaks up about the racism they have faced and uses the term white people instead of some white people. _Instead of just looking at the person_ experience many feel the need to defend the people who are not like this.




Then maybe they should look at the person.  I hear from black people from privileged backgrounds about the sort of racism they endured - the looks they receive, or the jokes that they've heard, and so forth.  And I'm sure it hurts.  I can sympathize.  My sympathy gets strained when they start talking about those minor incidents as evidence that they need more privilege, or evidence that I could never understand the pain that they experience from taunting, especially from people who tell me they've never actually been the victims of violence but live in continual fear of it.  I tend to start thinking its not my imagination that is actually limited by experience here.



> If you are not a racist, sexist jerk then why do you feel the need to defend and deflect from the point being discussed?




Because it's wrong.  And it's not merely wrong, but it's destructive and dangerous, and needs to be challenged.  And disagreement with you might make me an insensitive jerk, I'm hardly the best at social skills, but any jerkiness on my part isn't directed especially at women or minorities.  

Don't expect my challenging things that need to be challenged to be limited to just those things you think need to be challenged.



> As a white person I had to develop a thicker skin when reading stories of racism. My first inclination was to defend myself and say I am not like that not all white people are like that. Then I realized no one is saying that we are and anyone who actually believes that has a lot of anger and bigotry of their own that need to work through.




You really think no one says that all whites are racists?  Or that no one believes that?  I grant the majority of black people don't believe that, but many do.  I mean, I've had a black friend of mine get involved with a church that taught the theology that white people were the creation of the devil and they didn't actually have souls.  And he believed it, to the extent that it made him sad that I couldn't go to heaven.  

You don't have to go far to find many people arguing that all white people are racists.  You don't have to go far to find people arguing that black people can't be racists.

You think I haven't developed thick skin?  You think my experiences haven't left me wary?

Why don't we focus on what we have in common instead of assuming we just can't possibly understand each other?



> I am a little worried that I might be harassed that I will have to deal with subtle sexism in the form of a DM or other players ideas of the realistic way to show a female PC. I have seem one to many times rape used as backstory or hinted at to outright described by DMs who some how don't know better or can't grasp why a female player may not want to deal with that in game. Then there are the DMs who feel the need to stick a female PC who is sexually active with a pregnancy. Unless the player is interested in that why go there? I have had arguments with DM on this with them taking the stand that since it is not a technological world there is no birth control. I have even had an argument with a GM in Shadowrun over this with him saying no birth control is 100%.




That probably made you feel uncomfortable.  We can talk about those specific issues, but is there really a point in talking about them until we get passed this idea we live in such different worlds that we can't see anything from the other's point of view?   Or we can sit here and debate whose victimization gives us the most authority to tell everyone that disagrees with us to shut up because they just can't possibly understand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You really think no one says that all whites are racists?




I'll back you up there- I have some family members of that mindset.


----------



## Celebrim

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll back you up there- I have some family members of that mindset.




You said you were from LA?  I had some players driving up from N'awlins for open gaming night at Little Wars in Baton Rouge?  Any chance you were one of them?  If you were, I apologize for killing your character off brutally and unfairly.  In my defense, it had nothing to do with your skin color.  I did that to everyone.  I distinctly remember that the guy who died 5 minutes into one game from a Symbol of Fear (no save) that panicked his character into a rolling boulder trap was white.


----------



## DM Howard

I have become very aware of the types of sexism and harassment that she talks about in her article.  To cut a long story short my wife is suffering with PTSD due to an attack that happened to her when she was working over the summer in college.  This experience has really turned up my sensitivity dial to 11 and I am starting to adjust my behavior to account for things that, as a man, I don't tend to think of as a big deal.  This is a problem overall, I wouldn't just point the finger at the gaming community, but I think it is so extreme (and surprising), because gamers tend to be (but not all mind you) social outcasts, nerds, geeks, bookworms, etc.


----------



## Fildrigar

Libramarian said:


> Actually the claim she does have to substantiate is that Wyrd Miniatures staff members have been threatening her. I've never heard of them nor the game Malifaux, but that's a serious accusation. She should be able to prove that easily so I hope justice is swiftly achieved.




Someone has already posted a link to the newspaper article. ( Wyrd is a miniatures game. ) Here is some stuff from the Wyrd Miniatures forum. ( Ferossa is the username of the person who ( I'm assuming ) wrote the Tumblr. ) This is an encapsulated version of the thread, because it's a long thread. It is important to note that this thread is one that has been specifically designated for off topic subjects that usually end up derailing other threads.

Ferossa starts with a post that is mildly critical of Wyrd's representation of Women. ( And an incredible insight into one of the more problematic characters in Malifaux, that made me say "WOW." ) She also briefly outlines some of the harassment she's seen over the years. ( Most of which shows up in her Tumblr post. ) The Wyrd dude escalates her mild criticism, conflating it with an attack on the company. ( Including the standards "we have Women who work here, too" and "but I have gay friends", etc. ) A bunch of the other posters take Nathan's attack on her as license to escalate. Right at the end of the thread, she posts; "To whomever decided to respond by hunting down my personal e-mail and mailing me a bunch of illegal porn, I reported you to the authorities and I hope they SWAT you. I'm now 3/3 wargame communities where I have experienced direct, targeted harassment aimed at driving women out of the hobby. Are we going to accept that there's a problem?" 

Here is a link to the thread in question:
http://themostexcellentandawesomefo...x-andor-have-debate-about-in-malifaux/?page=1

The Tumblr post that begins this thread has been popping up all over the place. Since it did, I have seen dozens of my friends and acquaintances who are women relate some of their experiences being harassed in Gamer Spaces. And I've seen hundreds of men posting that it's not a problem, that she's lying, that we should ignore it. I'm done ignoring it.


----------



## Celebrim

Dndungeoneer said:


> This is a problem overall, I wouldn't just point the finger at the gaming community, but I think it is so extreme (and surprising), because gamers tend to be (but not all mind you) social outcasts, nerds, geeks, bookworms, etc.




I think there is some truth to the claim that victims of abuse often turn into abusers themselves.  I'm not excusing it.  Indeed, no group ought to be so condemned for practicing it, since they ought to know what it is like themselves.   But human nature isn't rational.  We feel instead of think, and when we find belonging and membership, that's especially and doubly true.

So, maybe there are some geeks out there that are taking out there frustration on the popular girls that picked on them in high school.  I don't know.  It seems possible.

But I don't believe that there is an especially large intersection between gamers and sexism, or between gamers and abuse, above and beyond our slice of the world.  It would however be nice to clean up our little portion of the world, whether or not we have an especial problem.   

BRIAN
               Then I assume Allison and I are
               better people than you guys, huh?
               Us weirdos...
                    (to Allison)
               Do you, would you do that to me?

                           ALLISON
               I don't have any friends...

                            BRIAN
               Well if you did?

                           ALLISON
               No...I don't think the kind of
               friends I'd have would mind...

                            BRIAN
               I just wanna tell, each of you,
               that I wouldn't do that...I wouldn't
               and I will not!  'Cause I think that's
               real ...​


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Celebrim said:


> You said you were from LA?  I had some players driving up from N'awlins for open gaming night at Little Wars in Baton Rouge?  Any chance you were one of them?  If you were, I apologize for killing your character off brutally and unfairly.  In my defense, it had nothing to do with your skin color.  I did that to everyone.  I distinctly remember that the guy who died 5 minutes into one game from a Symbol of Fear (no save) that panicked his character into a rolling boulder trap was white.



Nah, I'm from NOLA, but have never had the pleasure of gaming in my home state.  I got into the hobby in Colorado, and hpave kept up with it through a stop in Kansas and my "settlement" in Texas.


----------



## MechaPilot

Celebrim said:


> That probably made you feel uncomfortable.  We can talk about those specific issues, but is there really a point in talking about them until we get passed this idea we live in such different worlds that we can't see anything from the other's point of view?   Or we can sit here and debate whose victimization gives us the most authority to tell everyone that disagrees with us to shut up because they just can't possibly understand.




I didn't read her response to you as saying that we are so radically different that we are incapable of understanding each other.  However, I feel as if I should emphasize that simply knowing the rules we are raised with and understanding the reasons for them is not enough to adequately walk in a woman's shoes, because there are very strange confluences of feelings that go along with being in situations where the different rules apply.

Consider the situation of a woman getting a flat tire at night, and then a strange man offers to help her.  For the sake of this example, let's place me as the woman in the example.  I genuinely want to believe in the goodness and charity of humanity.  When that man offers to help me, there is a sense of relief, of having part of a burdensome situation lifted from my shoulders.  However, there are also many competing feelings.

I realize that being alone at night when a stranger happens upon you is a compromising position.  He is offering to help, but is that all he really wants?  I could say "no thank you.  I can handle it."  I am certainly capable of changing a tire on my own.  But, if he was genuinely offering to help, then not only have I inconvenienced myself, but I also may have hurt his feelings when he only wanted to help (and it really sucks to make a decent person feel bad because you just don't know them well enough to trust them).

And then there's the feeling of uncertainty.  That feeling of, "he doesn't seem like a bad person and he is offering to help, should I really be judging him so harshly?"  That feeling of "am I being unduly paranoid?" that always competes with personal security concerns.

At the same time, I'm also aware that he is probably stronger than me.  If I accept his help and he does turn on me, am I physically capable of fending him off?  This question has some variation due to clothing as well.  If I'm coming back from some place that I wore heels to, I definitely can't fight or run in those (sometimes just walking in those monsters is difficult enough).  If I'm wearing a skirt, I'm also definitely going to feel much more vulnerable than if I'm wearing jeans.

And don't forget that this storm of concerns and emotions is going on in the time it takes for the stranger who asked "need a hand?" or said "looks like you could use some help." to expect a simple "yes" or "no" or "please" or "thank you so much" in reply.

And if I do agree to help and he does very kindly change my flat tire, there's a small moment of anxiety at the end.  Is he going to expect something from me for his time and effort?  How should I react if he asks for my number, or a date, after he changes my tire?  I don't want to be mean to him: he did just help me out.  At the same time though, I'll also feel at least a little bit as if he expects me to give in to his request as a form of payment for his time.  He may not mean it that way.  I think a lot of men who ask for a number or a date after giving assistance don't intend to extort a date from the woman they've helped.  However, I think a lot of them don't think about the feeling of obligation I would be having at that moment.  A request for a phone number or a date in a moment like that always has a pseudo-predatory feel to me because of that feeling of obligation.

Please note that I did not go through this exercise to scold you or to show how you just can't understand what it's like to be a woman.  I think most men are capable of understanding, if they put their minds to it, but I think that all too often they entirely neglect to consider the emotional and social pressure aspects of a situation.


----------



## cmad1977

Celebrim said:


> Presumably I am.  Which makes it very hard for me to say anything that is in any way constructive, since the first thing I have to prove is that I'm not a "white male terrorist".
> .




Incorrect. If you are not her target you don't have to prove anything. There is zero logic to you feeling targeted. I don't and I'm right in the target demographic. She's spot on. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But I don't believe that there is an especially large intersection between gamers and sexism, or between gamers and abuse, above and beyond our slice of the world. It would however be nice to clean up our little portion of the world, whether or not we have an especial problem.




I'm pretty sure that the gamerverse is statistically normal in those regards, but I think that there may be less recognition of the problem- within and without of the hobby.  It is uncomfortable for us as gamers- members of a niche hobby, villified as "satanists" in the 1980s, many of us bullied as outsiders/nerds/geeks- to actually see and read about others like us being _predators_.  It breaks our communal rose-colored self-image.

It's a common thing for groups to be unaware of how statistically normal they really are, even when discussing aberrant behavior.  Many people criticize Catholicism for harboring pedophiles.  The reality is that the percentage of offenders in the Catholic priesthood is essentially indistinguishable from rates in other faiths.


----------



## Celebrim

MechaPilot said:


> Please note that I did not go through this exercise to scold you or to show how you just can't understand what it's like to be a woman.  I think most men are capable of understanding, if they put their minds to it, but I think that all too often they entirely neglect to consider the emotional and social pressure aspects of a situation.




I think there are cases where that is true, but I think it's also true that men are continually on the other end of these awkward social exchanges, and are often thinking all the same sorts of thoughts from the other end of it.  True, when we are in these awkward exchanges, we aren't also the ones that are feeling threatened and intimidated by the size or strength of the other person in it, which is bound to make things even more uncomfortable for the woman than it is for us.

But keep in mind, most men are probably pretty darn wary of strange men as well.  Violence between men is not unknown either.

So yes, if I see a woman changing a tire beside the road, my mind starts going, "Should I stop?  If I stop, will she be afraid of me?  She might panic and call 9/11 if some stranger just shows up.  Or she might get offended.  She might think that I think she can't change the tire herself.  Probably she can change the tire herself.  Or if she can't, she's probably called some friend or relative, and me stopping will just be awkward and unwanted."  And by the time I think all that, it's too late to stop, and the world just became a little less civil and polite place.  The sexist part is admittedly, all this probably won't go through my head if I see a man changing a tire.  I'll just think, "Poor guy.  What an awful place to have a flat."  

But sure, none of what you describe is really anything other than what I would have imagined about the situation.

Or, to give you another situation.  I used to commute along a strip that had a lot of hitchhikers.   I used to stop and give them rides.  I would however never advice my daughters to give rides to strange men.

But did it occur to you that I would have advice my sons never to give a ride to a strange woman.  Can you imagine why?


----------



## Elf Witch

Celebrim said:


> Is it surprising that you'd be wary around strangers, and especially around strange men?  Not at all.  Seems completely reasonable to me.  But as I said from the beginning, I'm also not at all surprised that we are just talking past each other on this.
> 
> I tried very hard to forestall this walling off response, about how I didn't understand what it was like to be a woman where that was made the substance of the rebuttle of what I said, or the whole of the understanding of it.  And, sure, in the sense that I was watching rather than participating when my children were born, there are some experiences unique and particular to being a woman that are quite beyond my imagination to grasp.  But it's not that sort of experience we are talking about.  Despite my many asides to concede the reasonableness that being a woman might give you a different perspective, here we are.  So let's take this more directly head on.
> 
> It's not beyond a man's capacity to walk a mile in a woman's shoes or visa versa.  Men and women are gifted with fantastic imaginations, and intellects, and likewise we also share in common experiences of being marginalized, of being threatened, of being victimized, of being bullied, of being harassed, and in some cases of being brutalized.  What is needed is more discussion over what we have in common, rather more lines drawn around us to separate us into little tribes.
> 
> I'm well aware of what women are taught and arguably need to be taught about being safe around men, and avoiding being alone with strange men, and so forth.  I have to do the job of teaching it.
> 
> You managed to make yourself livid over your assumption of my blindness despite all the effort I took to forestall that by admitting that we had very different experiences, and in part that those experiences were because I was a man.  All that was admitted up front.  And her anger and suspicion of me and anyone that looks like me were conceded as reasonable from her background many times in my writing.  There is I admit truth to the fact that people can come from different places, and experience different things.  And while there is some truth to the statement that we can never know exactly what it is like to be someone else, I firmly believe that it is also true that that is not an absolute barrier to our compassion and understanding of one another.  And I likewise believe that it is good to act on the hope that other can relate and sympathize with our struggles and our difficulties and all the hardships we've endured as people, not merely as men or women.
> 
> 
> 
> I do too.
> 
> 
> 
> I do too, and said as much.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, it doesn't matter why you've been marginalized and harassed.  It doesn't hurt less to get marginalized and harassed because you are a woman or because you are autistic nerdy white boy with a deep tan and a Caribbean accent in a rural Southern town where many people have never had the resources to go more than 30 miles from where they were born.  The majority is just whoever outnumbers you, which when you are in a community of one, is everybody.  And privilege and protection is not something that is particular to a skin color, but can be simply just being the popular kid.  Telling someone about privilege of being white or male while they are getting kicked bloody by a half dozen black men four to six years older than you simply because they've been taught to feel threatened by white people, and maybe even with legitimate reason, but this is a scrawny white kid no body will protect who they can take that frustration out on.
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe they should look at the person.  I hear from black people from privileged backgrounds about the sort of racism they endured - the looks they receive, or the jokes that they've heard, and so forth.  And I'm sure it hurts.  I can sympathize.  My sympathy gets strained when they start talking about those minor incidents as evidence that they need more privilege, or evidence that I could never understand the pain that they experience from taunting, especially from people who tell me they've never actually been the victims of violence but live in continual fear of it.  I tend to start thinking its not my imagination that is actually limited by experience here.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's wrong.  And it's not merely wrong, but it's destructive and dangerous, and needs to be challenged.  And disagreement with you might make me an insensitive jerk, I'm hardly the best at social skills, but any jerkiness on my part isn't directed especially at women or minorities.
> 
> Don't expect my challenging things that need to be challenged to be limited to just those things you think need to be challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> You really think no one says that all whites are racists?  Or that no one believes that?  I grant the majority of black people don't believe that, but many do.  I mean, I've had a black friend of mine get involved with a church that taught the theology that white people were the creation of the devil and they didn't actually have souls.  And he believed it, to the extent that it made him sad that I couldn't go to heaven.
> 
> You don't have to go far to find many people arguing that all white people are racists.  You don't have to go far to find people arguing that black people can't be racists.
> 
> You think I haven't developed thick skin?  You think my experiences haven't left me wary?
> 
> Why don't we focus on what we have in common instead of assuming we just can't possibly understand each other?
> 
> 
> 
> That probably made you feel uncomfortable.  We can talk about those specific issues, but is there really a point in talking about them until we get passed this idea we live in such different worlds that we can't see anything from the other's point of view?   Or we can sit here and debate whose victimization gives us the most authority to tell everyone that disagrees with us to shut up because they just can't possibly understand.




Yes it made me livid because it is something that every woman who talks about this on any internet forum has to deal with the men who feel the need to get butt hurt over it and bring up the whole not all men rape, some women lie about rape, hey did you know men get raped too. It is an emotional subject and one I have dealt with a lot. So instead of responding right away I walked away to cool off and to explain my position in a rational way.  Which is why men need to understand that women are raised to view them with a wary eye. And yes that put the burden on you. 

Just like if I am dealing with a POC the burden to show that I am not a racist is on me. Why because I belong to group that is in power. 

I don't think anyone is saying it hurts less to be bullied or hurt just because you are in the majority. Your example of a white boy being beaten up by black men is an example of this what they did was wrong and hurtful and horrible. But it was individual men doing it and while there is no doubt that there is black on white violence it is not something that has happened to white men while the authorities stood around and did nothing. It is not institutionalized racism being done by the society. I got the crap knocked out of me in a riot in my middle school by several black girls who were just looking for someone white to hit. A cop had killed an armed young black man who had gotten in a scuffle with two white guys in a bar for groping his girlfriend. The racial tensions blew that day in school. I was upset and angry I didn't think I deserved to be beat up I was not racist I thought the cop had been in the wrong.  It took me years to understand the difference between what those girls did to me and and good ole boys sheriff deputies abusing their power on people of color. When was the last time if ever you heard of black people torching a white church or a angry mob of black people lynching a white person?

Is it wrong to label an entire group as wrong doers yes it is. But that is not what this blogger did she said that gaming has a white male terrorist problem not all white male gamers are terrorist so no need to jump to the defense of all white male gamers. I am not going to assume that you are jerk I have never seen any evidence of that in your posts. But you should be aware that misogynist men do use tactics like this to deflect away from the issue being discussed. Racist use it too. 

Having experiences in common allow us the ability to empathize and we should absolutely try and find common ground with them. You just have to be careful that it is done in away that is emphatic but not to diminish what the the person is saying. Let me give you an example POC often talk about how they are ignored by sales people in upper scale stores.  I can empathize because as a fat woman that happens to me a lot as well it is like I am invisible. But I have to be careful how I phrase it other wise it comes across as well that happens to fat people too. The difference being if I lost weight as a white woman the situation would change for me for a person of color it wouldn't until society changes. And that right there is how privilege works.   

I think it is important to discuss these things to shine a light on what the roaches are doing. Just being aware that these things happen to women and POC in gaming/geek hobbies allows all of us the ability to make things better. I had a conversation with a younger DM a few years ago about how he had zero female NPCs in power how the only female NPCs we ever saw were either sinners or saints. At first he got all upset he didn't understand where I was coming from because my PC was treated well. How I finally got him to understand was to use his personal experience of being the only geek in a family of non geeks and how that made him feel. He hated that his family treated him like an oddity. I pointed out that in away my PC felt like an oddity. 

My point is no I am not telling you or anyone to shut up.


----------



## Springheel

> So, I see no claim that "all white males are terrorists", here. I see a claim that there is a problem with the (perceived) existence of an exclusive "white male culture" that condones and protects misogynists. And I think that claim is accurate. The solution is to make it cease to be so.




She may not make the claim that ALL white males are terrorists, but she certainly paints the community with a broad brush:

"the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists. "

"The majority of gamers ... are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment."

"It is almost impossible to convince gamers that sexist and racist jokes are unacceptable"

"The prominence of white male terrorism in the geek community is obvious "

"#allmen are complicit in the harassment. "

"the majority of gamers refuse to speak up in support of those marginalised "


Her message probably would have been better received without the overgeneralizing.  There are definitely creeps and predators in the gaming community, but to suggest that the majority fall into those categories, or even that the majority support that behaviour, is both misleading and offensive.


----------



## billd91

MechaPilot said:


> After all, if you get mugged you can always cancel your credit cards and earn back the money you lost, but a victim of sexual assault can never be un-assaulted.




That may be being a little dismissive of the trauma of being mugged. I won't equate it with being sexually assaulted, but people can and do often come away with significantly more trauma than simply having to cancel a credit card, particularly when the mugging is violent.



MechaPilot said:


> And the blame aspect that you mentioned is especially shameful.  We don't accuse mugging victims of flaunting their wealth, or carjack victims of driving too nice a car, or home invasion victims of having too nice a home.  And even if we did, that would in absolutely no way hold water as any kind of judicial escape hatch for the mugger, carjacker, or home invader.  However, when it comes to victims of sexual harassment or violence both men and women on juries are often swayed, or at least influenced, by the victim's attire, sexual history, etc.




Actually, in many cases, I'd say we *do* chide mugging victims for walking through the wrong areas, burglary victims for not keeping their homes locked, and many people are advised to avoid buying cars in colors that more often get stolen. But in all of those cases, we're still mostly clear, as a society, that it's the crime perpetrator who is solely to blame even if the victim could have exercised a little more security consciousness. That's where we fall down on dealing with sexual harassment and sexual violence - we should be able to teach and advise people on how to reduce their chances of being a victim without being accused of blaming the victim - but we have to actually stop blaming the victim before we can reach that point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Springheel said:


> She may not make the claim that ALL white males are terrorists, but she certainly paints the community with a broad brush:
> 
> "the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists. "
> 
> "The majority of gamers ... are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment."
> 
> "It is almost impossible to convince gamers that sexist and racist jokes are unacceptable"
> 
> "The prominence of white male terrorism in the geek community is obvious "
> 
> "#allmen are complicit in the harassment. "
> 
> "the majority of gamers refuse to speak up in support of those marginalised "
> 
> 
> Her message probably would have been better received without the overgeneralizing.  There are definitely creeps and predators in the gaming community, but to suggest that the majority fall into those categories, or even that the majority support that behaviour, is both misleading and offensive.



Here's the thing: I haven't seen evidence that gamers ARE publically standing up in appreciable numbers.  Her account of the letch asking her age and starting the chant- taken up by others in the store- "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" is pretty damning.  That speaks of being extremely comfortable with not being held accountable.

Ditto the lesser incident I described upthread, in which a woman was "eyeballed" out of a gaming store.  I doubt the owners- a married couple- would have tolerated it had they been there at the time.  But nobody did/said a word in rebuke of the behavior.  Hell- I admit I was boggled and didn't say a word.  In retrospect, I should have.


----------



## Celebrim

Elf Witch said:


> Yes it made me livid because it is something that every woman who talks about this on any internet forum has to deal with the men who feel the need to get butt hurt over it and bring up the whole not all men rape, some women lie about rape, hey did you know men get raped too.




Ok.  But then if that is how you feel about 'what-abouting' this sort of thing, why did you go from there to here:



> I don't think anyone is saying it hurts less to be bullied or hurt just because you are in the majority. Your example of a white boy being beaten up by black men is an example of this what they did was wrong and hurtful and horrible. But it was individual men doing it and while there is no doubt that there is black on white violence it is not something that has happened to white men while the authorities stood around and did nothing. It is not institutionalized racism being done by the society.




Isn't that just as much 'what-abouting'?

I don't agree with your arguments about vaguely defined privilege and how it's different depending on what your skin color is.  That's just more giving excuses; the very thing you say you are against.  You getting beat up unjustly by a gang of black girls looking for someone white to hit;  sounds to me like injustice.  You don't get a victim pass to do that regardless of what made you angry. 

I'm not going to go into the details and pulling more anecdotes out to keep countering your examples of what does or doesn't happen out there.  More things are out there than exist in your view of the world.  I'm not going to go there though because it's not about who gets the most victim cards to play to excuse their anger.  It's about the fact that people treat each other poorly, and we need to not be a part of that.  It's about being the person that says, "You know, because I've known what it is to be treated unjustly, I'm not going to treat you that way."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Actually, in many cases, I'd say we *do* chide mugging victims for walking through the wrong areas, burglary victims for not keeping their homes locked, and many people are advised to avoid buying cars in colors that more often get stolen. But in all of those cases, we're still mostly clear, as a society, that it's the crime perpetrator who is solely to blame even if the victim could have exercised a little more security consciousness. That's where we fall down on dealing with sexual harassment and sexual violence - we should be able to teach and advise people on how to reduce their chances of being a victim without being accused of blaming the victim - but we have to actually stop blaming the victim before we can reach that point.




2 basic rules help a lot: Be aware of your surroundings.  Don't make yourself look like easy prey.  

I don't wear my best jewelry when I go in certain neighborhoods.  I don't get drunk in public (well, much of anytime, anymore).  Etc.

There was a horrendous case when I was in Austin- a biker gang raped a woman, then beat her half to death.  They caught the SOBs and convicted them for it...along with a host of weapons & drug charges besides.  But the thing is, at trial it came out she was blackout drunk and dancing naked on a pool table in their club.  She was so blotto, the only reason the bikers were caught at all was an uninvolved person witnessed and reported the events (and apparently had to go into the Witness Protection program).

Is she to blame?  Absolutely not.  What she did is no excuse for their criminal assault.  However, she did metaphorically wear a suit of pork chops into a tiger cage.  She lost awareness and control, which made her easy prey.  That's _her_ irresponsibility.


----------



## Curmudjinn

The Rogue One trailer comments on YouTube reminded me of this  thread. Crazy amounts of sexism and damning the franchise over a female lead again. Like the worst subReddits.

P.S. Can't wait to see it..


----------



## MechaPilot

Celebrim said:


> I think there are cases where that is true, but I think it's also true that men are continually on the other end of these awkward social exchanges, and are often thinking all the same sorts of thoughts from the other end of it.  True, when we are in these awkward exchanges, we aren't also the ones that are feeling threatened and intimidated by the size or strength of the other person in it, which is bound to make things even more uncomfortable for the woman than it is for us.




I agree that there's a social awkwardness that men face when dealing with women.  For example, it can't be easy for a man to walk up to a group of women and try to talk to one of them without feeling weird with regard to what the proper social interaction with the rest of the group is.




Celebrim said:


> But keep in mind, most men are probably pretty darn wary of strange men as well.  Violence between men is not unknown either.




Granted, but with the following caveats:
1) most male on male violence is non-sexual in nature (and sexual violence is particularly damaging to the victim and egregious), and
2) most male on male violence is perpetrated because someone wants your property or your money and you refuse to give it up.

Being mugged is certainly scary, and the loss of cash and having to report credit cards stolen is an exasperating inconvenience.  However, handing over your wallet or your new sneakers to avoid violence (while scary and depressing and probably insulting to one's manhood) is a far different matter than an attacker only being satisfied after they've savagely and degradingly violated the sanctity of one's person.

Now please don't think I'm saying that male on male sexual violence is not a thing that happens.  It definitely does, particularly in prisons.  And please don't think I'm blind to male on male violence that is non-sexual but also not property related.  Hate crimes and drunken brawls are good examples of the latter.




Celebrim said:


> So yes, if I see a woman changing a tire beside the road, my mind starts going, "Should I stop?  If I stop, will she be afraid of me?  She might panic and call 9/11 if some stranger just shows up.  Or she might get offended.  She might think that I think she can't change the tire herself.  Probably she can change the tire herself.  Or if she can't, she's probably called some friend or relative, and me stopping will just be awkward and unwanted."  And by the time I think all that, it's too late to stop, and the world just became a little less civil and polite place.  The sexist part is admittedly, all this probably won't go through my head if I see a man changing a tire.  I'll just think, "Poor guy.  What an awful place to have a flat."
> 
> But sure, none of what you describe is really anything other than what I would have imagined about the situation.




That's interesting.  It does make me wonder how prevalent it is for men to think that way.  I recall my father telling me about a time that he stopped to help a woman shovel out her car that had skidded into a snow bank.  We're really close, and he didn't mention anything about being apprehensive about helping her.  Of course, that was also in the middle of the day on the shoulder of a busy street.  And, even if he didn't have any apprehension he is just one person and not necessarily indicative of the whole of men.




Celebrim said:


> Or, to give you another situation.  I used to commute along a strip that had a lot of hitchhikers.   I used to stop and give them rides.  I would however never advice my daughters to give rides to strange men.
> 
> But did it occur to you that I would have advice my sons never to give a ride to a strange woman.  Can you imagine why?




Yes, I can imagine why.  First, one should be wary of all hitchhikers.  They could easily be armed, and one is not able to defend oneself well while driving.  Also, accidents and misunderstandings happen.  A male driver could accidentally touch a female hitchhiker, perhaps while shifting gears, provoking a molestation misunderstanding.  Plus, some women are unscrupulous and will extort a driver with the threat of claiming rape or molestation.


----------



## Celebrim

MechaPilot said:


> Yes, I can imagine why.  First, one should be wary of all hitchhikers.  They could easily be armed, and one is not able to defend oneself well while driving.  Also, accidents and misunderstandings happen.  A male driver could accidentally touch a female hitchhiker, perhaps while shifting gears, provoking a molestation misunderstanding.  Plus, some women are unscrupulous and will extort a driver with the threat of claiming rape or molestation.




That's not a bad summary, but that's not the real fundamental reason.  The fundamental reason is that if anything happens at all, and it comes down to his word versus hers, he'll never be believed.  As man you have to accept that if it's ever your word against hers, there will be no presumption of innocence on your part.  And that's doubly true because no one will ever believe a man has anything other than a unsavory motive for picking up a strange woman.


----------



## MechaPilot

billd91 said:


> That may be being a little dismissive of the trauma of being mugged. I won't equate it with being sexually assaulted, but people can and do often come away with significantly more trauma than simply having to cancel a credit card, particularly when the mugging is violent.




Perhaps slightly, though I didn't intend to be so.  Being mugged is certainly scary.  Being physically assaulted as part of the mugging is, I'm sure, even more so.  Having been the victim of a burglary, I know the feeling of the loss of security in one's home.  I imagine a mugging has a similar effect, although it probably doesn't violate the security one feels while in her own home.


----------



## Elf Witch

Celebrim said:


> Ok.  But then if that is how you feel about 'what-abouting' this sort of thing, why did you go from there to here:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that just as much 'what-abouting'?
> 
> I don't agree with your arguments about vaguely defined privilege and how it's different depending on what your skin color is.  That's just more giving excuses; the very thing you say you are against.  You getting beat up unjustly by a gang of black girls looking for someone white to hit;  sounds to me like injustice.  You don't get a victim pass to do that regardless of what made you angry.
> 
> I'm not going to go into the details and pulling more anecdotes out to keep countering your examples of what does or doesn't happen out there.  More things are out there than exist in your view of the world.  I'm not going to go there though because it's not about who gets the most victim cards to play to excuse their anger.  It's about the fact that people treat each other poorly, and we need to not be a part of that.  It's about being the person that says, "You know, because I've known what it is to be treated unjustly, I'm not going to treat you that way."




I honestly don't know how to explain this to you. No one is saying that beating up someone because you have been mistreated is okay and excusable and that they should be cut some slack because of it. 

Maybe this will help here is the definition of institutionalized racism Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked.

I have also tried to explain how what about is used to discredit and silence people speaking up about an injustice. By focusing on her comments about white males in gaming and how she should not have painted with such a broad brush the subject of the harassment of women and POC gets shunted to the side. It is an effective tactic.


----------



## MechaPilot

Celebrim said:


> That's not a bad summary, but that's not the real fundamental reason.  The fundamental reason is that if anything happens at all, and it comes down to his word versus hers, he'll never be believed.  As man you have to accept that if it's ever your word against hers, there will be no presumption of innocence on your part.  And that's doubly true because no one will ever believe a man has anything other than a unsavory motive for picking up a strange woman.




Taking a moment to think about it, I think you're probably right about that.  I hold the position that the presumption of innocence is vital to our system of justice.  I also think the double standard that exists between the assumption of male impropriety toward female hitchhikers who claim to be victims and the general shaming and blaming of other women who claim to be victims is quite sad.


----------



## Elf Witch

Celebrim said:


> That's not a bad summary, but that's not the real fundamental reason.  The fundamental reason is that if anything happens at all, and it comes down to his word versus hers, he'll never be believed.  As man you have to accept that if it's ever your word against hers, there will be no presumption of innocence on your part.  And that's doubly true because no one will ever believe a man has anything other than a unsavory motive for picking up a strange woman.




That is simply not true. Do you know how hard it is to prosecute sexual assaults cases where there is no witnesses or violence? It comes down to he said she said and the burden of proving it lies on the rape victim and you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is often what happens when a woman reports to the police incidents of being groped all the guy has to say is I didn't touch her and without more proof usually the cops don't bother to arrest the guy and even if they do it usually does not go to court. 

It happens at cons when a women tells security of an incident if she can't back it up with proof other than her word even if the con has a policy of ejecting harassers out they tend to err on the side of the person being accused.  

It is a tough thing because there are women who have lied about being raped or being harassed. 

BTW no one should be picking up hitchhikers I drilled that in my son head not because I was worried about some girl screaming assault but you can't tell if someone is a criminal just by looking at them. I have a family member who was a Navy seal who used to pick up female hitchhikers because he wanted them to be safe.  The last one he ever picked up an innocent looking teen girl shot in in the head and robbed him. He lived but his life changed due to brain injury trauma.


----------



## Celebrim

Elf Witch said:


> I honestly don't know how to explain this to you.




Don't assume that the problem is that I don't understand.  You don't need to define institutionalized racism for me.  I understand your argument.  The problem is that I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with you.



> No one is saying that beating up someone because you have been mistreated is okay and excusable and that they should be cut some slack because of it.




In the same way, "no one" is saying what the original essayist endured is in any way justified.

It comes down to this.  I fully agree with you that sexual assault and harassment (to say nothing of rape) is appalling, and prevalence in gaming subcultures is worthy of discussion, and that we all ought to do everything we can to stop it when we see it.  But the underlying framework by which I come to that conclusion is not perfectly in agreement with yours.  There is a lot of overlap.  There are a lot of things we do agree on.  But some of your framework about how you see the world doesn't line up with some of mine.  If the only way I can prove I'm not one of the "white male terrorists" is agree with you about every detail, then we are in a lot of trouble.  My disagreement with you over these other matters that you just think I'm not getting, which in fact I do 'get' but have rejected, should not get in the way of agreeing to make the world a better place, with more compassion, and more respect for each other.  But, if my disagreement with you is met only with the accusation that I'm either a "white male terrorist" or enabling "white male terrorists", then there isn't a lot of hope to be had.


----------



## MechaPilot

Elf Witch said:


> That is simply not true. Do you know how hard it is to prosecute sexual assaults cases where there is no witnesses or violence? It comes down to he said she said and the burden of proving it lies on the rape victim and you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> It is often what happens when a woman reports to the police incidents of being groped all the guy has to say is I didn't touch her and without more proof usually the cops don't bother to arrest the guy and even if they do it usually does not go to court.
> 
> It happens at cons when a women tells security of an incident if she can't back it up with proof other than her word even if the con has a policy of ejecting harassers out they tend to err on the side of the person being accused.
> 
> It is a tough thing because there are women who have lied about being raped or being harassed.
> 
> BTW no one should be picking up hitchhikers I drilled that in my son head not because I was worried about some girl screaming assault but you can't tell if someone is a criminal just by looking at them. I have a family member who was a Navy seal who used to pick up female hitchhikers because he wanted them to be safe.  The last one he ever picked up an innocent looking teen girl shot in in the head and robbed him. He lived but his life changed due to brain injury trauma.




I have to say that I agree with both of you.

You are correct that such cases are very hard to prove where there are no witnesses and no lingering evidence of violence.  You are likewise correct that most police and prosecutors will likely inform the victim that there is little to no chance of proving what happened in such cases, and that taking such a case to court will likely result in the victim being dragged through the mud and not receiving any legal satisfaction.

However, I do think Celebrim is probably right that there will be a legally-unenforceable presumption that the man who picked up the female hitchhiker (particularly if she is young and/or attractive) had ill intent when he did so.  That presumption won't really change the outcome of taking the case to trial, because of the lack of evidence, but it will likely result in both parties being dragged through the mud during the trial.  Of course, given the costs of incarceration and prosecution, it's unlikely that the case would ever get to trial.

There's also the fact that many victims of sexual assault don't report, or don't report right away, out of shame and/or embarrassment to themselves and/or their families.  A victimized female hitchhiker who fails to report the crime for a couple days is certainly not going to get any legal satisfaction.


----------



## billd91

Celebrim said:


> That's not a bad summary, but that's not the real fundamental reason.  The fundamental reason is that if anything happens at all, and it comes down to his word versus hers, he'll never be believed.  As man you have to accept that if it's ever your word against hers, there will be no presumption of innocence on your part.  And that's doubly true because no one will ever believe a man has anything other than a unsavory motive for picking up a strange woman.




It's really not that way at all. When it comes down to his word vs hers, in most scenarios, she's the one at disadvantage. The presumption of innocence, as important as it is to our justice system, makes sexual assaults very hard to prosecute. On top of that, the intrusive questioning the victim will face, the public shaming that will ensue, and trauma of having to revisit it multiple times just to make an official statement, and then you start to realize why it's so often unreported.


----------



## Celebrim

Elf Witch said:


> That is simply not true.




I'm not going to go into this in great depth because it is a tangent in an already controversial subject, and it distracts from the main topic - which is sexism in gaming - and will move the conversation out of gaming into a broader political sphere we don't need to touch.

But I think I can briefly sum up why this situation isn't as straight forward as you think it is.  Ask danny's opinion of who he thinks would be believed if the accuser is white.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Springheel said:


> Her message probably would have been better received without the overgeneralizing.  There are definitely creeps and predators in the gaming community, but to suggest that the majority fall into those categories, or even that the majority support that behaviour, is both misleading and offensive.




Precisely.

Hyperbole, overgeneralizations, etc. are very counterproductive when you are trying to raise awareness of an issue and make a general call to action.  When the overgeneralization is specifically directed towards the people who you want to buy into your idea, you are likely to lose a lot of potential allies who may otherwise agree with the gist of the post/article/speech/whatever.

For example, second wave feminism failed to gain as much support among men and women as it could have because so many of the spokespeople made sweeping generalizations about men and relied on hyperbole to get attention.  

Being angry at mistreatment is perfectly reasonable, as is expressing that anger.  Making sweeping generalizations about gender doesn't help any cause, though, and is somewhat hypocritical when your complaint revolves around being mistreated because of your gender.

Having a valid complaint about sexism does not give you a free pass to be sexist in turn.  Pointing out sexism in a post about sexism is not redirecting the issue.  

Let's turn this around.  If a man were to write an article about his bad experiences in child custody cases and points out how widespread such things are, there's nothing wrong with that.  If he couches his article in sweeping generalizations about women, though, he's opening himself (quite rightly) to having people point out how he is being sexist.  That wouldn't constitute a misdirection from the issue, either.

Are there some gamers who behave inappropriately and even criminally?  Of course there are.  That doesn't mean that most do that, though, or that most stand idly by when they witness it.  It is a different thing to demonstrate that most female gamers have experienced it and to demonstrate that a majority of male users do it, or avoid stepping in when it happens.  Most of us have experienced bullies of one strip or another throughout or lives, but that doesn't mean that most people are bullies, or that most people tolerate bullying.  

Some female gamers experience harassment from male gamers.  That's a problem.  As with all social issues, it's important to keep pointing it out.  That's a good thing.  Descending into hyperbole and gross overgeneralizations damages the message, though.  There is nothing wrong with people within the group that the overgeneralization is directed towards pointing out the problems with it, regardless of their gender or ethnicity.


----------



## MechaPilot

pickin_grinnin said:


> Some female gamers experience harassment from male gamers.  That's a problem.  As with all social issues, it's important to keep pointing it out.  That's a good thing.




I feel the need to point out that while sexual harassment may be a "social" issue, a lot of what was described in the article was flat out sexual assault, and that's not a "social" issue: it's a "criminal" issue.


----------



## Libramarian

Fildrigar said:


> Someone has already posted a link to the newspaper article. ( Wyrd is a miniatures game. ) Here is some stuff from the Wyrd Miniatures forum. ( Ferossa is the username of the person who ( I'm assuming ) wrote the Tumblr. ) This is an encapsulated version of the thread, because it's a long thread. It is important to note that this thread is one that has been specifically designated for off topic subjects that usually end up derailing other threads.
> 
> Ferossa starts with a post that is mildly critical of Wyrd's representation of Women. ( And an incredible insight into one of the more problematic characters in Malifaux, that made me say "WOW." ) She also briefly outlines some of the harassment she's seen over the years. ( Most of which shows up in her Tumblr post. ) The Wyrd dude escalates her mild criticism, conflating it with an attack on the company. ( Including the standards "we have Women who work here, too" and "but I have gay friends", etc. ) A bunch of the other posters take Nathan's attack on her as license to escalate. Right at the end of the thread, she posts; "To whomever decided to respond by hunting down my personal e-mail and mailing me a bunch of illegal porn, I reported you to the authorities and I hope they SWAT you. I'm now 3/3 wargame communities where I have experienced direct, targeted harassment aimed at driving women out of the hobby. Are we going to accept that there's a problem?"
> 
> Here is a link to the thread in question:
> http://themostexcellentandawesomefo...x-andor-have-debate-about-in-malifaux/?page=1
> 
> The Tumblr post that begins this thread has been popping up all over the place. Since it did, I have seen dozens of my friends and acquaintances who are women relate some of their experiences being harassed in Gamer Spaces. And I've seen hundreds of men posting that it's not a problem, that she's lying, that we should ignore it. I'm done ignoring it.



Where's the proof that she's received death/rape threats from Wyrd staff members?

Out of curiosity, I noticed that you capitalized the word "women" multiple times in your post, but you didn't capitalize the word "men". Why did you do that?


----------



## pickin_grinnin

As far as the question of "what do to with sexism/harrassment in gaming," the answers are pretty clear.  They are the same as the answers to any social issue involving bigotry, sexism, racism, etc.

1) Continue to point out the issue in a sound, logical, mature way.

2) Don't descend to the level of the people who are causing the problem.  

3) Realize that hyperbole, logical fallacies, and so forth will hurt your cause more than help it. Don't drive away potential allies by making sweeping generalizations.

4) Realize that social issues don't go away overnight.  Continuing to push for change is a good thing, but don't expect that such things will go away in a year, or two, or even ten.  The best you can hope for is steady improvement.  That doesn't mean you should stop bringing attention to it.  It just means that you need to have realistic expectations.

Finally, I would say that the problem isn't that there are men in gaming who harass women.  The problem is that there are men who harass women, and this extends into all areas of life, including gaming.  There is no reason to think that gamers in general (male or female) are any more socially conscious, ethical, egalitarian, etc. than men and women who aren't gamers.  It's not a gamer problem.  It's the continued existence (though a lessening one over time) of a very, very old problem.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

(sorry - accidental double post)


----------



## pickin_grinnin

MechaPilot said:


> I feel the need to point out that while sexual harassment may be a "social" issue, a lot of what was described in the article was flat out sexual assault, and that's not a "social" issue: it's a "criminal" issue.




I agree - many of the examples she pointed out would be classified as sexual assault, which is a criminal issue.  That doesn't really change my points, though.


----------



## MechaPilot

pickin_grinnin said:


> I agree - many of the examples she pointed out would be classified as sexual assault, which is a criminal issue.  That doesn't really change my points, though.




Well you're certainly not going to hear me say that the generalizations aren't a distraction.  However, I do find myself wondering if we would even be discussing the article if it weren't for the inflammatory language used.  One of the things that I absolutely hate is the way no one seems to pay attention to calm, rational voices.  Instead, everyone these days seems to gravitate toward the more sensational and extreme voices.  If you have a message that you feel is important, and you know that people generally don't pay attention to rational but passionate advocacy, you might find yourself weighing the value of the inflammatory rhetoric as a tool to get your message noticed versus how significant a distraction it will be to any discussion of your message.


----------



## Hussar

Libramarian said:


> Where's the proof that she's received death/rape threats from Wyrd staff members?
> 
> Out of curiosity, I noticed that you capitalized the word "women" multiple times in your post, but you didn't capitalize the word "men". Why did you do that?




Hey [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I believe this is exactly what [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] was talking about when she talked about burden of proof.  Here's your example right here.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

MechaPilot said:


> Well you're certainly not going to hear me say that the generalizations aren't a distraction.  However, I do find myself wondering if we would even be discussing the article if it weren't for the inflammatory language used.  One of the things that I absolutely hate is the way no one seems to pay attention to calm, rational voices.  Instead, everyone these days seems to gravitate toward the more sensational and extreme voices.  If you have a message that you feel is important, and you know that people generally don't pay attention to rational but passionate advocacy, you might find yourself weighing the value of the inflammatory rhetoric as a tool to get your message noticed versus how significant a distraction it will be to any discussion of your message.




You can use click-bait titles to draw people to an article.  Those titles don't have to be the type that will alienate a good portion of your readers, though.  Even if you use one that is, you don't have to carry the sensationalism over into the article itself.  Doing so tends to do more harm than good if you have a serious message.


----------



## pickin_grinnin

Ugh - another unintentional double post.  Not sure why it keeps doing that.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You are being asked to set aside for a moment whether it "warrants" defense - that's about *your* rights, *your* feelings, putting focus on *you* as a victim.




No victim should have to put aside their rights or feeling over someone else being a bigger victim.  Should she put aside her feelings and rights over someone else being raped?  Should that raped woman put aside her rights and feeling over another woman being murdered?  Should the family of the murdered woman put aside her rights and feelings because bombings happen?  

That there was a Slippery Slope for those who don't know, but it illustrates the point very well.  No victim should have to be silent and put aside rights and feelings because of a more prominent victim.  They have the right to say, "Hey, I don't do that so leave me out of that attack.  Now, let's see what we can do about your issue."


----------



## Maxperson

DEFCON 1 said:


> Do you consider yourself a "white male terrorist"?  If the answer is 'Yes', then okay, I can understand getting defensive about her comments.
> 
> But if you don't consider yourself a "white male terrorist"... then you don't fall into the category of people she was insulting, and thus there should be absolutely no reason to feel defensive.   She wasn't talking about you.
> 
> But if you (the general 'You') DO feel defensive when she calls out "white male terrorists" and have to always go "Hey man, it's not me, I'm not like that!"... I'm willing to bet its because you *do* feel a bit of guilt when she brings stuff like that up.   As a result, perhaps you aren't as free from blame in the situation as you might want to believe.  You might not actively DO the things that she's defining as white male terrorism... but if you're doing nothing whatsoever to help or fix it, you're passively allowing it to happen.  Whether or not (general) you get defensive about that says a whole lot about who you are as a person.
> 
> Speaking personally... I try to behave as well as I think I can.  I also know I don't go nearly that far out of my way to actively _help_ situations when I could.  So yeah, the privilege I have as a straight, white, man to basically ignore all of this crap means I am tacitly guilty.  So the question comes down to whether or not I feel guilty (or get defensive) when I'm called out on it.  And for me... I'm luckily quite capable of not identifying with any group so closely that an insult to the group is an insult to me (again due to my privilege).  If someone insults all white people and say we are not doing enough to help racism in this country... I don't take it personally.  If someone insults all straight people and say we are not doing enough to help homophobia in this country... I don't take it personally.  If someone insults all gamers and say we are not doing enough to help other gamers who are being crapped upon in this country... I don't take it personally.  The only time I'd take it personally would be if someone said _to me_ "Hey, Fish... you had a chance to help out here in this situation and you didn't do it.  That was a crappy thing."  At which point, yes, THEN I might be within my rights to get defensive... but hopefully at the same time my compassion and empathy would kick in and I'd instead take a good hard look at what I did or didn't do, and whether I needed to apologize and/or learn from the mistake for the future.




That sort of twisted logic is the kind that says that people are wrong for not wanting the police to just walk into their homes whenever they wish to search it.  After all, if they don't have anything to hide it shouldn't upset them.

No.  If someone who is completely innocent has someone walk up and punch him in the face, he has the right to be offended and defend himself.  He isn't wrong for doing so just because he's innocent.  I don't become, feel or even look guilty when I defend myself from an attack over something that I didn't do.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm a black male born in Louisiana and living in Texas. Have done most of my life. Some of my hobbies- gaming, going to heavy metal concerts, etc- are extremely Caucasian-centric. While I'm a pretty easy going guy and like to think the best of people, I would be lying to you if I told you that I don't become more hyper-alert around unfamiliar white males than around any other group.  I don't live in fear, but I do live with _caution_.




That's normal, though.  Any time anyone of any color is out of their element and in unfamiliar and potentially dangerous situations they get hyper-alert.  I am when I go through neighborhoods that are hispanic or black and known for gangs.  I'm out of place and alone, so I am very alert to what is going on with the people I pass.


----------



## Hussar

But there's a difference though. You aren't hyper alert because you're different. You're hyper alert because that area is dangerous. I doubt you think twice when sitting down in a Chinese restaurant despite the fact that you are maybe in the ethnic minority at that specific point in time. 

It's not like you'd be hyper alert walking into a gaming store.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> That's normal, though. Any time anyone of any color is out of their element and in unfamiliar and potentially dangerous situations they get hyper-alert. I am when I go through neighborhoods that are hispanic or black and known for gangs. I'm out of place and alone, so I am very alert to what is going on with the people I pass.




Out of my element?

I'm a black man living in a predominantly white society.  But for the first 4 years of my life, I have always lived in predominantly white neighborhoods.  I went to schools on military bases, big cities, suburbs, and small Midwestern towns, all predominantly white- some, overwhelmingly so.*

By your definition, _I am almost never in my element_.

I'm hypervigilant because white males- especially in the South- do things like burn crosses and decorate trees with strange fruit.








* I was the first black guy to graduate from my high school (the next came 10 years later) and one of 20 blacks in my college's student body of @5500.


----------



## Elf Witch

Celebrim said:


> Don't assume that the problem is that I don't understand.  You don't need to define institutionalized racism for me.  I understand your argument.  The problem is that I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, "no one" is saying what the original essayist endured is in any way justified.
> 
> It comes down to this.  I fully agree with you that sexual assault and harassment (to say nothing of rape) is appalling, and prevalence in gaming subcultures is worthy of discussion, and that we all ought to do everything we can to stop it when we see it.  But the underlying framework by which I come to that conclusion is not perfectly in agreement with yours.  There is a lot of overlap.  There are a lot of things we do agree on.  But some of your framework about how you see the world doesn't line up with some of mine.  If the only way I can prove I'm not one of the "white male terrorists" is agree with you about every detail, then we are in a lot of trouble.  My disagreement with you over these other matters that you just think I'm not getting, which in fact I do 'get' but have rejected, should not get in the way of agreeing to make the world a better place, with more compassion, and more respect for each other.  But, if my disagreement with you is met only with the accusation that I'm either a "white male terrorist" or enabling "white male terrorists", then there isn't a lot of hope to be had.




Tell me where anyone here has said that if you don't totally agree with what we are saying you are white male terrorist? I certainly have not said that or implied that I thought it. I disagree with a lot of what you are saying but I have not seen you defending the jerks that do this or blaming the victim or calling her liar like I have seen on some other forums. I even said earlier that nothing you have ever posted here has lead me to believe that you were a jerk.


----------



## Elf Witch

Celebrim said:


> I'm not going to go into this in great depth because it is a tangent in an already controversial subject, and it distracts from the main topic - which is sexism in gaming - and will move the conversation out of gaming into a broader political sphere we don't need to touch.
> 
> But I think I can briefly sum up why this situation isn't as straight forward as you think it is.  Ask danny's opinion of who he thinks would be believed if the accuser is white.




And ask a black woman what she thinks would happen if she accused a white guy of this without proof or witnesses? None of this is straight forward especially when it deals with harassment and groping. 

Let me ask you something do you have much experience with women or men for that matter who have been sexually assaulted? I ask because I was assaulted at 16 and since I didn't immediately tell anyone when I finally broke down and told my father and we went to the police it became a he said she said and there was no evidence to back up my claim of what happened. The police refused to charged him so he got away with it until he was caught in the act several years later and went to prison for 5 years. 

I have spent over 40 years in various support groups and I can tell you that many victims have had the same exact experience I had with the police. And if the guy is white with a middle class or higher economic status is well educated and charming good luck unless he got violent or someone witnessed it. It is a little easier if you are white and your attacker is not or is poor an lacking say social graces.  I have heard versions of this story so many times. From the girl who was assaulted by her pastor but is afraid to speak up because he is well respected in the community with a wife and daughters of his own. I don't often bring this up in these discussions because I have been accused of using it to emotionally  blackmail to win my argument. 

I am bringing it up now to point out that it is not that easy for a victim to get help from the police and yes who the victim is and who the harasser is colors how the police view it. A scantily clad cosplayer who has posed for pictures all day and has enjoyed that attention is going to have a harder time being believed that she was harassed by a lot of people.

A woman who has been drinking even if not falling down drunk also faces this. 

The same with a woman who was flirting with a guy earlier and then he does not take no or takes liberties he thinks he is entitled to because you flirted or he bought you dinner or a drink. Date rape is one of the hardest to prosecute.   

I mentioned in my first post about being groped in an elevator at Worldcon by a famous writer.I will never tell on the internet who is was. I learned the hard way back in the 70s that some people who are fans of his get really angry over it. I don't need to be called a liar or interrogated if maybe I was flirting with him and sent him mixed signals and I certainly don't want to hear excuses how he was drunk and how he is now sober as that some how excuses what he did. And it was not just me who had to deal with him in those early years before he sought treatment for his issues.  

I believe what this blogger wrote about how the police were of no help because I experienced it for myself and have heard so many victims say the same thing. 

And no I am not saying that an innocent man accused of rape or assault can't have his life dragged threw the mud and his life destroyed by a false claim. But the burden of proof especially in court comes down to evidence and if there is enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. And Yes I know a lot can depend on who the jury believes and who has the best attorney.


----------



## Libramarian

Hussar said:


> Hey @_*Celebrim*_, I believe this is exactly what @_*Elf Witch*_ was talking about when she talked about burden of proof.  Here's your example right here.




If you're going to jump into someone else's conversation, make sure you're following along.

I haven't personally badgered the author to prove anything, first of all. I haven't said anything to her. I said upthread that if she has anything to prove, it's her claim that the threats she received were from Wyrd staff. That's a serious accusation that could affect the reputation of their business.

(Imagine if you owned Wyrd Miniatures, for a moment. The situation is a bit messier than you thought at first, isn't it?)
 [MENTION=67925]Fildrigar[/MENTION] then replied to this part of my post, ostensibly to provide this proof. I looked through the thread they linked but didn't see it so I asked them to point it out for me.


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> No victim should have to put aside their rights or feeling over someone else being a bigger victim.  Should she put aside her feelings and rights over someone else being raped?  Should that raped woman put aside her rights and feeling over another woman being murdered?  Should the family of the murdered woman put aside her rights and feelings because bombings happen?
> 
> That there was a Slippery Slope for those who don't know, but it illustrates the point very well.  No victim should have to be silent and put aside rights and feelings because of a more prominent victim.  They have the right to say, "Hey, I don't do that so leave me out of that attack.  Now, let's see what we can do about your issue."




When POC talk about their experiences even if they do so with hostility directed at white people my first reaction is not to jump and say hey I don't do that and feel offended and feel the need to talk about my feelings there by taking the attention off their issues. I know that all white people are not racist I know many POC who know this too. I also know that some because of their experiences do believe that. I also know that getting defensive and turning the talk to how I feel about the accusation is not going to reach them or change their mind. 

Is there a time and place to talk about how you feel yes but it is not when they are talking about how they have been effected by sexism or racism. Even if you are not trying to deflect you are changing the subject and making it about you.

You brought up the whole child custody thing men face in family court and yes it needs to be discussed but not when say a women is talking about dealing with the courts to get her EX to pay for child support. It is the same with rape. Yes men get raped what happens in our prisons is a terrible thing and needs discussion but you don't bring it up when talking about sexual assault on college campuses.  And it works the same way in the opposite to. 

I have said that I wish people would not make such provocative statements on issues because it fuels this kind of issues and the messages often gets lost. I have many arguments with people in the social justice community over this and how these kind of statements makes people close their ears. But I also know that sometimes you can talk calmly and rationally trying to get your statement noticed but it is ignored until you start screaming. 

Black lives matter campaign is not something that happened over night it has been building for years and finally enough was enough and people openly protested. The civil rights movement would never have accomplished anything if people had not provoked change from Rosa Parks refusing to move to black students openly walking into a white only tables in restaurants and demanding to be served and refusing to leave until they were dragged out. I remember listening to my very southern parents talking and complaining about how uncivilized it was and why didn't they just talk to the restaurant owners and the mayors and governors instead of stirring up trouble. 

There are hundreds of posts and blogs on the internet about harassment in geek hobbies most get ignored by the majority of geeks. But this one with the white male terrorist title has gotten people talking. I have seen this posted in several gaming forums, it has been on twitter and Facebook so I think we are seeing that sometimes you have to be loud to get people to listen.


----------



## Celebrim

Ok, one thing I do know is that if this thread ends up being about a bunch of issues of the larger world rather than specifically about harassment in gaming, we might as well shut it down now.  The further afield we roam, the more things we are going to find to disagree about, and the more often our different personal life experiences are going to cause us to talk past each other.  There is no use trying to come to any agreement on all these larger issues in this forum.

Let's try to get our focus back down on specific issues at the table, in a gaming store, or at a convention.

One thing that has repeatedly happened in this thread is that both sides have said to the other one, in effect, "You are reading into these comments things I'm not saying, or not intending to say."   That seems to me very applicable to a gaming table.   And in particular, I'd much rather hear opinions and perspectives on pregnancy, rape, sexuality, gender dynamics and so forth in the game world from people who've lived very different lives than I have, and how that can be handled or mishandled than to listen to arguments about gender politics that I could get at any political forum on the web.


----------



## Obryn

Wow. Lotta guys in here super concerned about teaching women the finer points of persuasion.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Celebrim said:


> Let's try to get our focus back down on specific issues at the table, in a gaming store, or at a convention.




Indeed.  And I think the primary things that needs to happen (in a game store or out of it) before all of us as a society can really move on is that the group that has had (and truthfully still predominantly has) the power in this country-- Straight, CIS, Caucasian, Adult, Males-- accepts the fact that the way they have been able to behave in the last several centuries towards other people, is no longer being accepted as "just the ways things are".  And when someone outside of the 'Straight, CIS, Caucasian, Adult, Male' group says "Hey, this thing is happening to me/us and it has to stop"... we need to stop, listen, accept that 99.9% of the time what that person is saying is absolutely true, and figure out what we can do to help rather than immediately put our backs up because we got our nose out of joint.

Listen.  And believe.  Just by starting there, we might very well be on the right path to maybe seeing things get better.  Because as amazing as it might be to realize... 99.9% of all people outside of the 'Straight, CIS, Caucasian, Adult, Male' group are not purposely trying to get us in trouble for no reason by making crap up.  That's really not happening.  Because in fact... they don't NEED to make crap up about us... we do a damn fine job of giving them all the honest reasons in the world.


----------



## Celebrim

*face palm*


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> No victim should have to put aside their rights or feeling over someone else being a bigger victim.




Nobody should get non-consensually groped in a gaming store either.  Clearly, what *should* happen isn't what's happening.  What "should" happen clearly didn't work for the author, why do you it expect to work for you?

In a perfect world, one of infinite time, attention, resources, and goodwill, nobody would have to.  In *this* world, we must prioritize.  Walk into an emergency room on a busy Saturday night with a skinned knee among the gunshot wounds and drug overdoses, and you'll see what I mean.  It isn't that your issue isn't an issue, but you may have to wait for it to be addressed.  It isn't that they are "bigger victims" - that sounds like an emotionally loaded phrase.  It is simply that the injury they suffer is greater than yours.  

And, in this case, unlike in the emergency room, properly addressing the larger root issue *will also address your issue*.  Work to reduce the sexism in gaming, and you'll reduce the incidence of such articles.  Help others, and you help yourself!

So, I will repeat - by all means continue focusing on the harm done to you, if you feel it is the real priority here.


----------



## Gradine

A lot of the "talking past each other" issue comes down a matter of belief. Either you believe the stories women share about their varied experiences with harassment, threatened and/or real violence, and sexual assault, in which you sort of have to acknowledge that there is a problem and something ought to be done about it; or you don't believe them, in which you are completely dismissing their lived experiences and therefore should not be surprised that your protestations of "I don't agree..." or "I don't believe..." are met with the likes of "You don't seem to understand..." You are saying you don't believe in something that is actual fact, something that actually has happened and still happens.

Now, if you do believe that there is a problem then obviously there should be some discussion has to the nature and scope of the problem as well as what, if anything, there can or should be done about it. These are productive conversations. Unfortunately, if you refuse to believe in the problem, insist that the endless multitudes of stories of harassment and violence are all works of fiction, there is sadly nothing you can really add to that discussion and in fact all that you will be capable of doing is disrupting it. 

We'd love to invite you to the real world where flagrant misogynists and predators actually exist in numbers far greater than most people seem to be willing to accept, and where the vast multitudes of "#notallmen" gamers enable these predators by either ignoring them, refusing to acknowledge their existence outside a few rare "bad seeds" that only exist in barely relevant "not my community"-land, or refuse to call them out on the less overtly dangerous behaviors and attitudes they exhibit that makes them feel like the overt violence they do commit is actual socially justifiable, or shout down the voices of those who do call predators out on these as "overly sensitive" or "feminazis" or "SJWs" or whatever the hip new derogatory buzzword is for people demanding to be treated with actual respect. We'd love everyone to join the real world and work towards changing it for the better, but a failure to believe in the real world is a barrier to entry to being a productive part of the conversation. 

The enduring problem, then, that comes with having this conversation is getting people to the point where they're actually willing to believe the multitudes of stories that exist and are occurring in plain view on internet and at conventions and game stores every god damned day. It's certainly not for lack of evidence, no matter how many people continue to insist on seeing it and dismiss it when it inevitably does get presented. In my mind it's a matter of empathy. Either, at some point in your life, you were raised or trained or learned on your own to have empathy for people whose lived experiences are vastly different from your own, or you weren't. I wouldn't know the first place where to begin in how to train empathy to total strangers over the internet, particularly ones who are inclined to be opposed, either civilly (as has been the case here) or uncivilly (see: most of the rest of the internet gaming forums) to the process in the first place. But I feel it's a process worth figuring out. Until it is I don't see how conversations between people who believe women's stories and those who don't will ever progress beyond talking past each other.



To introduce a new topic, one I'm pretty curious about, but what does it say about how far the tabletop gaming community is along in the process of reversing decades of misogyny and homophobia that it doesn't have its own equivalent to "Gamergate" or "Rabid Puppies"? Is it a good sign? A bad sign? Does it say anything at all? I mean, I know there were assorted grumblings when the 5e PHB dropped its language of inclusivity towards gender identity and sexuality, but Gamergate started over far less and both those movements speak to anxieties about the types of changes to their respective industries that the 5e PHB clearly exemplifies. I mean, I know there's the Chainmail Bikini Enthusiasts Squad, a debate I had actually believed both sides had simply gotten tired of having until it cropped up again in this thread. And I know there's a certain sub-cultures in the darker recesses of the OSR movement that clearly wants to, to put it as indelicately as possible, "Make D&D Rapey Again." But no broad sweeping movement seems to have formed in opposition to the 5e PHB language. In fact, it seemed to get pretty much universal praise, again except for those assorted grumblings here and there. I'd like to think it's a good sign, but it could very easily be a bad one too; that is, the forces that would form such a movement don't feel, like Gamergaters or Rabid Puppies do, that they're losing their grip on their hobby at all, and therefore don't feel the need to establish a counter-culture around "restoring" it. Or does it really just not say anything at all, and that like-minded tabletop gamers have simply latched on to Gamergate?


----------



## Celebrim

Gradine said:


> A lot of the "talking past each other" issue comes down a matter of belief. Either you believe the stories women share about their varied experiences with harassment, threatened and/or real violence, and sexual assault, in which you sort of have to acknowledge that there is a problem and something ought to be done about it; or you don't believe them, in which you are completely dismissing their lived experiences and therefore should not be surprised that your protestations of "I don't agree..." or "I don't believe..." are met with the likes of "You don't seem to understand..." You are saying you don't believe in something that is actual fact, something that actually has happened and still happens.




You don't understand.  This issue here is not whether or not you believe these things happen.  I quite clearly - even in the assessment of the person I'm not agree with - believe these things happen, that they are serious, and that they should not happen.

This hasn't dented your confidence in the simple binary narrative of either you believe or you don't believe in the slightest.  Why?



> Now, if you do believe that there is a problem then obviously there should be some discussion has to the nature and scope of the problem as well as what, if anything, there can or should be done about it.




Now we get down to the real brass tacks.  This is where almost all the disagreement actually is.

I mean, to put a trivializing spin on this, one could argue from what I've said that the 'solution' to this problem is simply for men to beat the living tar out of any man they see doing this at a con or a gaming store, and then for the whole community to applaud that as the (as I put it) "human filth" were thrown out the door a bloody mess.  But, it should be obvious at some level that not only was I not seriously advocating that as a solution, but speaking out of my anger at the whole idea this would happen, but such a 'solution' would have more than a few problems of its own.  It certainly doesn't have the problem of not stepping up and tolerating this crap, but it has its own problems.   And while I am trivializing my own words on this subject here by giving a straw man example of behavior in response to this, ultimately when we get down to pragmatics, a lot of the things we'd try to do have serious issues.

More over, there is a deeper level that we don't agree on, which for lack of a better term lets call 'alignment', and even all of us in the "not evil" camp that are like, "This is a bad thing", don't construct our view of the world, society, or even the idea of identity in the same fashion.  The only thing we basically agree on is, "Don't be a jerk", but when we try to implement that I think we are going to be immediately shocked by what different people put not just in the jerk category but in the down right "not good" category.   

To be quite frank about how deep this divide goes, there have been responses in agreement to me that I consider morally equivalent to a KKK ranting about racial superiority, and I feel pretty sure that other people have probably got the same view of things I'm saying.  Even speaking in a common language that the other won't because of culture differences and assumptions won't find offensive is very hard, even when everyone in the conversation is committed to "doing something about" sexual harassment.



> These are productive conversations.




Unfortunately, they are not, and this thread is a good example of why.  For example, after saying that, you go right back to:



> Unfortunately, if you refuse to believe in the problem, insist that the endless multitudes of stories of harassment and violence are all works of fiction, there is sadly nothing you can really add to that discussion and in fact all that you will be capable of doing is disrupting it.




You can't engage in a productive conversation on this topic if your assumptions are completely obdurate to what anyone is saying.  Get through your head, the source of what we disagree over has nothing to do with whether or not this stuff happens or whether I believe it happens.  Consider, you've decided to construct the argument that you just did, directly quoting a conversation between me and someone else where we both agree that the incidents in question happen, and yet you still constructed an argument based around a binary of whether or not someone believes this stuff happens.  You had to have read the thread and paid close attention, or you couldn't have quoted it.  But what you read had to figuratively bounce off your presumptions about this subject in order for you to respond the way you did.

The remainder of your argument is equally insulting and oblivious, so I won't even go to the trouble of responding to it.  Why would I bother when its so completely clear that there are more fundamental problems here that you are still framing the debate in this manner?

Again, if we have to get our world views to line up in order to solve this, then we don't have much hope.  If for example, whether we can work together to stop sexual harassment is predicated on us both constructing the notion of identity in the exact same way, and we first have to hash that out and if we can't we are reduced to shouting that the other is a "terrorist", then yeah, let's just close the thread.


----------



## Rottle

Maybe I am just too old school but it baffles me that such behavior isn't stopped by others who see it happen.  You just don't ever let someone get harassed without stepping in.  Maybe they don't recognized it as harassment. 

I would ask if you feel your being harassed please speak up right away, maybe I am dim or don't understand but I do promise I and I think most others will step up to stand with you.   I don't care your gender, race, age, or well anything else.  If you feel your being harassed thats enough, say so clearly and I really have faith others will stand with you even if they don't understand.  I believe in people and even if they don't understand they will not allow someone's request for help to go unheeded.   

It is time we talk solutions.  Being ready to stand with those harassed is a start.  Making sure others know when you are being harassed is another.   What other ideas do we have to stop this repugnant behavior?


----------



## Umbran

Rottle said:


> What other ideas do we have to stop this repugnant behavior?




Make sure the conventions or game stores you frequent have clearly stated and posted harassment policies.  If they don't have them, ask them to post them.  If they refuse, ask why.  If they cannot satisfy you with an answer (and it should be very difficult to satisfy you, right?) make it clear to your local friends.  Give a Yelp review about it, or raise the point on their Facebook page.


----------



## Gradine

Celebrim said:


> You don't understand.  This issue here is not whether or not you believe these things happen.  I quite clearly - even in the assessment of the person I'm not agree with - believe these things happen, that they are serious, and that they should not happen.
> 
> This hasn't dented your confidence in the simple binary narrative of either you believe or you don't believe in the slightest.  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we get down to the real brass tacks.  This is where almost all the disagreement actually is.
> 
> I mean, to put a trivializing spin on this, one could argue from what I've said that the 'solution' to this problem is simply for men to beat the living tar out of any man they see doing this at a con or a gaming store, and then for the whole community to applaud that as the (as I put it) "human filth" were thrown out the door a bloody mess.  But, it should be obvious at some level that not only was I not seriously advocating that as a solution, but speaking out of my anger at the whole idea this would happen, but such a 'solution' would have more than a few problems of its own.  It certainly doesn't have the problem of not stepping up and tolerating this crap, but it has its own problems.   And while I am trivializing my own words on this subject here by giving a straw man example of behavior in response to this, ultimately when we get down to pragmatics, a lot of the things we'd try to do have serious issues.
> 
> More over, there is a deeper level that we don't agree on, which for lack of a better term lets call 'alignment', and even all of us in the "not evil" camp that are like, "This is a bad thing", don't construct our view of the world, society, or even the idea of identity in the same fashion.  The only thing we basically agree on is, "Don't be a jerk", but when we try to implement that I think we are going to be immediately shocked by what different people put not just in the jerk category but in the down right "not good" category.
> 
> To be quite frank about how deep this divide goes, there have been responses in agreement to me that I consider morally equivalent to a KKK ranting about racial superiority, and I feel pretty sure that other people have probably got the same view of things I'm saying.  Even speaking in a common language that the other won't because of culture differences and assumptions won't find offensive is very hard, even when everyone in the conversation is committed to "doing something about" sexual harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, they are not, and this thread is a good example of why.  For example, after saying that, you go right back to:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't engage in a productive conversation on this topic if your assumptions are completely obdurate to what anyone is saying.  Get through your head, the source of what we disagree over has nothing to do with whether or not this stuff happens or whether I believe it happens.  Consider, you've decided to construct the argument that you just did, directly quoting a conversation between me and someone else where we both agree that the incidents in question happen, and yet you still constructed an argument based around a binary of whether or not someone believes this stuff happens.  You had to have read the thread and paid close attention, or you couldn't have quoted it.  But what you read had to figuratively bounce off your presumptions about this subject in order for you to respond the way you did.
> 
> The remainder of your argument is equally insulting and oblivious, so I won't even go to the trouble of responding to it.  Why would I bother when its so completely clear that there are more fundamental problems here that you are still framing the debate in this manner?
> 
> Again, if we have to get our world views to line up in order to solve this, then we don't have much hope.  If for example, whether we can work together to stop sexual harassment is predicated on us both constructing the notion of identity in the exact same way, and we first have to hash that out and if we can't we are reduced to shouting that the other is a "terrorist", then yeah, let's just close the thread.




I apologize if I have misread your statements or arguments. It appears I was making some assumptions about where you were coming from based on your overall position, and more to the point conflating the argument you've been having with other discussions happening in this thread, which is obviously not something I should be doing while trying to engage in a productive conversation. As someone who hates when my own statements are misread or when people make incorrect assumptions by erroneously "reading between the lines", I again apologize, sincerely, for misrepresenting you specifically.

However, I feel like I too have been misrepresented here. To write off the rest of what I have to say as "insulting and oblivious" is the very definition of being insulting and oblivious yourself. Part of that is my fault; I did address (if indirectly) a lot of this messaging towards you specifically when it actually appears it was intended towards other individuals in the thread. That said, nothing I have said is not absolutely true; it most certainly is. I just misplaced your particular argument as one being about belief (where I do sincerely believe constructive dialogue is unlikely if not impossible until one side demonstrates the ability to practice basic levels of human empathy); where instead it seems like your argument falls more in line with the merits of the scope of and possible solutions to the problem, which I think is a productive dialogue.

That said, there is an element of "belief" that has created a sticking point, and this is what you would refer to as "identity politics" and the notion of privilege. It's a significant sticking point because sexual harassment and violence against women in gaming communities is not isolated problem that exists in a vacuum; it's intractably linked to all sorts of broader societal issues that I and others believe need to be addressed to see any progress but you can feel free to roll your eyes at as I list them: toxic masculinity ("we'll kick their asses to protect our women!"), the objectification of women (women as victims/sexual trophies, to bring it back to gaming), rape culture (which is an idea not even all anti-rape activists have gotten on board with at this point so I'll forgive the eye rolling), the inherent distrust of women ("obviously every story here is fictional"), etc. It's my belief that any conversation about the scope of the problem or any possible solutions cannot prove effective unless each of these issues (and more) are addressed as well. You obviously disagree. So yeah, that's a pretty big sticking point, but not nearly at the level of the "none of these issues are true/men standing up for this aren't real men" nonsense that happened further up-thread. We're still in the scope/solution stage at this point.

It is worth mentioning, though, that unless I'm missing anything (feel free to tell me if I have), but the only person referring to you as a terrorist for not 100% aligning yourself with the base assumptions of the article's author or anyone else in the thread is... well, you. This sort of self-victimization and defensiveness does derail the conversation (see the tone policing of the article's author, also in this thread) and detracts from the real issues you yourself seem to agree are much more important. I'm going to address this next statement to entire thread/board, because I'm truly not singling you out here: but if you read the entirety of her article and thought she was defining you, personally, as a terrorist, then that probably is something that you should take a moment of self-reflection about, which if I had to guess I would say was entirely intentional on the author's part.

So yeah, I apologize again for lumping your argument with some of the more intractable and unreasonable stuff up-thread. I still not certain there's a middle ground to be reached between you and others until you're willing to give even a smidgen of an inch on some of the gender politics stuff that myself and others feel is undeniably linked to this issue, but I'm hopeful and I certainly don't think the discussion is not worth having. I mean, you obviously seem to give some sort of credence to the notions of identity politics and privilege or else you wouldn't have dragged dannyalcatraz into your comment about white accusers (intersectionality!). I certainly should not have declared you bereft of empathy; I'm sorry for that. Again, those comments were really directed at others in this thread, it's simply the timing of when I came to the thread and my own misreading that I ended up directing them at you instead.


----------



## Rechan

(I did a global ENWorld search and didn't see any mention of this topic, and since it's kinda related to this thread, I thought I'd bring it up here. This thread has been mainly related to women, but there's other people who can be harassed.

Last week, Baldur's Gate 2 received a DLC, Siege of Dragonspear. In it, there's a character who in a few lines of dialogue, mentions that they are transgender. The response has not been pleasant. The argument is that A) tthe existence of a trans character in the game is a break of suspension of disbelief, and 2) the inclusion of one is facilitating an agenda.

My point in bringing this up is: what do you think this says to any trans person whoeven remotely thinks about getting involved in gaming? Let alone any that might want to get into game development? 

I do give enormous props to game studio, Wizards of the Coast, and even Ed Greenwood himself standing firm with the inclusion of the character, and the developer who wrote the scene/character. WotC included mention of various LGBT characters in the 5e core, and hell, Paizo has a TG iconic character, so I am so proud the big guys are behind this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> In a perfect world, one of infinite time, attention, resources, and goodwill, nobody would have to.  In *this* world, we must prioritize.  Walk into an emergency room on a busy Saturday night with a skinned knee among the gunshot wounds and drug overdoses, and you'll see what I mean.  It isn't that your issue isn't an issue, but you may have to wait for it to be addressed.  It isn't that they are "bigger victims" - that sounds like an emotionally loaded phrase.  It is simply that the injury they suffer is greater than yours.




I think this is a good description of "societal triage".


----------



## MechaPilot

I was inspired by this conversation to ask two of my male coworkers, who are also friends of mine as well as convention-goers, about the topic.

One of them said that there is harassment and assault, but no more so than you would find at a concert or other such event where you get a lot of people together in a relatively close space.

The other said that harassment and assault happens often at cons, and he specifically stated that it happens more frequently at gaming cons and anime cons.  In particular, he stated that female cosplayers often have to deal with assault in the form of unwanted touching/groping, as if there were a general assumption that it's okay to touch the cosplayers without asking.

Now, I wouldn't say that either of these friends is extraordinarily sensitive to women's issues, or that either of them self-identifies as an old-school feminist* like I do: I also wouldn't say that either of them is anything close to being a misogynist.  This is actually the first time we've spoken about a womens' issue, I was the one who brought it up, and both of them seemed sort of bummed out by the answers they gave (given what I know about them after working with them and being friends with them for years, I'm certain they found the idea of women being harassed and assaulted at cons for the things they enjoy to be distasteful).  However, I will say that the second friend is more of a people-watcher than the first, so it may well be that the first friend didn't notice as much of it going on as the second one did.  The first friend actually attended a con recently with his girlfriend, and I'd be most interested to get her perspective on it.

* old-school feminism meaning advocating for equality between the genders, but not for special treatment for women, and not overreacting to things like the leaked Suicide Squad set photo of the Joker slapping Harley.

Now, I'm a shy girl.  I've had people tell me that conventions are fun, and that I'd probably really like playing D&D at a convention if I went and played.  I've always been held back in that regard by my shyness.  However, I now have a reason to not even try to overcome it.  Based on everything that I've read and heard, even if I was able to overcome my shyness issues I really don't think I'd feel welcome, comfortable, or safe at a convention.

Years ago I had an experience that almost caused be to quit playing D&D.  My DM relocated, so I had to find a new group to game with.  I found a group, but I didn't really know anyone there.  During the game, the party bit off more than it could chew, and we were captured.  I was the only female player, and I played the only female character in the group.  The DM proceeded to have our captors rape my character.  He even pushed me to roleplay the scene, describing what the rapist was doing to my character and asking me what my character was doing.

I was horrified to the point of silence.

When I looked around the table for support, the other players just stared at me and watched as my face turned pale, glancing back to the DM as he described the "action."  Once I realized that yes, this was actually happening and they expected me to be a part of it, I grabbed my stuff and left as quickly as I could.

It was humiliating, terrifying, and degrading (I could only assume they were imagining me going through what was being done to my character).  In retrospect, I think I was very fortunate that I didn't suffer a real life assault that night.  However, as fortunate as I may have been that night, it was also a very scarring experience that informs my decisions about playing with strangers to this day.  That's how I almost quit D&D for good, and I have no desire to relive that situation ever again, especially not at a convention where more people can gather around to witness my being raped by proxy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Rottle said:


> Maybe I am just too old school but it baffles me that such behavior isn't stopped by others who see it happen.  You just don't ever let someone get harassed without stepping in.  Maybe they don't recognized it as harassment.




There you go.  That's it in a nutshell.  You have the offenders, and the you have the ones who- while they may not be offenders themselves- don't see the problem and thus, don't take any action to change the situation.  This silence becomes complicity: it maintains the environment in which the offenses can continue without repercussions.

In the late 1990s, a new seafood restaurant opened in my neighborhood.  We went in at an off-peak time, so the place was empty.  We ordered our food and it was pretty good. Mid-meal, however, some others came in and out in their orders.  One walked over to the juke box and put some money in, so we were treated to the David Allen Coe song, "My Wife Ran Away With A ".*

The owner shot the other group (laughing like hyenas) a dirty look as we left, never to return, but...who is responsible for buying/renting and installing the jukebox in the first place?  What business loaded that song into the machine to make it available to purchase? DAC claims he's not a racist- his drummer's wife is black- but why record that song?**

There was a whole chain of actions and inactions that made that moment possible.







* which, BTW, is something I actually appreciate about Southern bigots- they often tell you who they are. They almost can't help themselves.  Makes them easier to avoid.  In the North, they generally keep themselves concealed more often than not, and simply sabotage you.


** and others.  See his _Underground Album_, which was called one of the most racist, misogynistic, and homophobic albums ever by one reviewer.


----------



## billd91

MechaPilot said:


> Years ago I had an experience that almost caused be to quit playing D&D.  My DM relocated, so I had to find a new group to game with.  I found a group, but I didn't really know anyone there.  During the game, the party bit off more than it could chew, and we were captured.  I was the only female player, and I played the only female character in the group.  The DM proceeded to have our captors rape my character.  He even pushed me to roleplay the scene, describing what the rapist was doing to my character and asking me what my character was doing.
> 
> I was horrified to the point of silence.
> 
> When I looked around the table for support, the other players just stared at me and watched as my face turned pale, glancing back to the DM as he described the "action."  Once I realized that yes, this was actually happening and they expected me to be a part of it, I grabbed my stuff and left as quickly as I could.
> 
> It was humiliating, terrifying, and degrading (I could only assume they were imagining me going through what was being done to my character).  In retrospect, I think I was very fortunate that I didn't suffer a real life assault that night.  However, as fortunate as I may have been that night, it was also a very scarring experience that informs my decisions about playing with strangers to this day.  That's how I almost quit D&D for good, and I have no desire to relive that situation ever again, especially not at a convention where more people can gather around to witness my being raped by proxy.




That's obnoxious. I'm sorry you were subjected to that.


----------



## Rottle

I don't have the words or the idea to solve this.  Every time someone posts how it happened to them I just get more frustrated I cannot stop it.   

I recall the guardian angels used to patrol the subways all in red so they could be easily seen.  Maybe I don't know maybe some gamers with the courage to stand out could do that.  Don't get physical or anything just have your phone ready to call for help if that is needed or just be there to assure others they are safe.  Maybe that isn't a good idea but it's so frustrating to know this happens.


----------



## Celebrim

@Grandine: Yes, I'm doing a lot of eye rolling over here, but again, perhaps not for the reasons you believe.

You have to understand that I have repeatedly in this thread tried to get other participants to view my ideas in a favorable light, by highlighting where how I see things overlaps with how I suspect they see things.  And I have even at times allowed myself to use language which I think they would understand to express these ideas.  But you ought not to assume that in doing so I am in any sense endorsing how that language is generally employed, or that my thinking on this subject comes from a similar place that yours does.

Or to put it another way, I'm trying to practice tolerance toward persons, even though I'm actually very intolerant of some of the ideas being discussed here and do not think the ideas deserve any more toleration than I would extend toward someone who came here and started saying that for example, women secretly like to be raped.  So when you push an idea like "intersectionality" to describe what I'm actually thinking, understand that I actually categorize the entire concept of intersectionality in the category of "things that are inherently hateful and immoral". 

To understand why, consider two different ways of constructing identity: let's call them Idem and Isum.  (Though I'm sure I can come up with better terms if I've given some time to think about it)  Idem says that what makes each person themselves is something individual to them.  You can think of Idem as saying, "I know who you are by looking at your signature, or your fingerprint, or your face.  These things are inherently unique to you."  Under Idem, I can't say I know anything about a person until I actually know the person and get to know their distinct individual traits.

Isum says that what makes each person knowable is the list of categories that they belong to.  Isum sees each individual as a list of descriptors that are applied to them.  If you apply enough descriptors to the person, then you know the person.  You can think of Isum as saying that, "I know your identity because you are 6'2", blond haired, brown eyed, Caucasian, male, etc."   If you apply enough descriptors to the person, then you can say, "I know that person."   And the problem with Isum is that while it can be at times useful, it's inherently wrong.  It's inherently wrong because it's not factual.  Each person is more than the list of categories that they belong to.  It's inherently wrong because the list of categories is assigned to the person, sometimes by choice, and sometimes without choice.  It's inherently wrong because the categories that are assigned to the person as important are arbitrary.  It's inherently wrong because it denies the individual worth, individual identity, and individual rights of the person.  

Yet "Intersectionality" instead of studying the Idem of the person, seeks to know the person by studying the Isum of the person.  And in doing so it reinforces the creation of the idea of categorization.  The mental mode of thought behind it is inherently racist, sexist, and ultimately hateful and denigrating.  It is also something that ought to be rejected on its own terms.  If you think you know me because I'm a "white male", you are just ignorant.  Full stop.   Because you'd never accept the claim that I know someone else because I knew they were a "black female".  "Intersectionality" maybe useful to certain disciplines, because it formalizes a structure in which academic disciplines receive approval to treat people as statistics and homogenous political units, instead of messy individuals.  But that used to be called racial essentialism about 100 years ago.  "Intersectionality" is just an umbrella terms that makes that sort of thought politically acceptable and allows it to pass in polite company.

So no.  I'm not going to budge an inch.  Nor will I stand aside and allow that sort of thought to drag us back into a dark place.  Nor will I stand here and endorse irrational muddled thinking that in one sentence uses identity to mean idem, and then lacks sufficient self-awareness to see in the next sentence it's used the word 'identity' to mean the antonym of idem.  Nor will I endorse using the word privilege to mean its opposite or another sort of Ingsoc lobotomizing of the language.  Such thought needs to be lampooned, rather than celebrated or promoted.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Actually, while the guardian angels did have some issues with violence perpetrated by their members, other groups who have relied on calling in witness reports- sometimes with photographic or video support- have been pretty effective.

While I suggested see it report it upthread, actually having a group of people who are both vocal about actively ending harassment and willing to be visible while doing it MIGHT have a net positive effect.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Celebrim, neither Idem nor Isum can- by themselves- result in true knowledge of a person.  One is gross overview related, one is detail oriented.  You need both.

But I'll say this: I probably know more about you if I know you're a tall, white, male, Zoroastrian, blonde, blue eyed, C&W loving log cabin republican (Isum) than if I know your signature (Idem).


----------



## MechaPilot

billd91 said:


> That's obnoxious. I'm sorry you were subjected to that.




Although I didn't relate that experience to garner sympathy, your empathizing with how I felt is much appreciated.


Also, thanks for causing me to look up obnoxious.  When I initially read your response, I thought "Obnoxious?  That sounds rather soft."  I am rather proud of how extensive my vocabulary is.  However, the common usage of obnoxious has caused the general understanding of the definition to be more akin to "annoying" than "deeply unpleasant."  So thanks for causing me to brush up on my language skills.


----------



## Celebrim

MechaPilot said:


> Years ago I had an experience that almost caused be to quit playing D&D.  My DM relocated, so I had to find a new group to game with.  I found a group, but I didn't really know anyone there.  During the game, the party bit off more than it could chew, and we were captured.  I was the only female player, and I played the only female character in the group.  The DM proceeded to have our captors rape my character.  He even pushed me to roleplay the scene, describing what the rapist was doing to my character and asking me what my character was doing.
> 
> I was horrified to the point of silence.
> 
> When I looked around the table for support, the other players just stared at me and watched as my face turned pale, glancing back to the DM as he described the "action."  Once I realized that yes, this was actually happening and they expected me to be a part of it, I grabbed my stuff and left as quickly as I could.




I've heard these horror stories many times, and I can't relate them to my play very well at all.  In general, D&D doesn't generally allow players to be captured all that easily.  It's far easier to kill players than capture them.  That's probably a good thing.  

It's very hard for me to get into the heads of anyone in the scene you describe.  I have no idea what the motivations were, whether prurient, clueless, or to inflict degradation on a stranger.  It just seems strange to me, not the least of which that they would be comfortable to play out a scene such as that with a complete stranger.  I wouldn't be comfortable going into the details of a sexual scene with a friend, and any time any sexual contact occurs, it tends to be handwaved with, "You may assume whatever you think would occur, did occur." and we bang to a further scene.

I'll say this though, I've never once had a good experience gaming with strangers, and the only time I've ever played with strangers more than once, it was because I was the GM and I organized the group... and knew within 15 minutes that it was going to be a disaster, but continued for a few sessions out of my sense of obligation.   In my experience, RPing - at least the part that isn't simply wargaming - is too intimate and too intense of an activity even when it isn't discussing sexual matters to do well and comfortably among strangers face to face. 

That said though, I wouldn't mind forking out at some point to discussing consent issues at a gaming table, just because I can think of situations that have come up in play - always handled with a handwave as I said - which were to my mind at least parallel to rape either of male or female characters (to be feasted on by a vampire, for example).   And I would love to have your thoughts on such situations, and how they ought to be handled, and whether players ought to be protected from them, and whether it matters if it is occurring in a spot that has already been established as 'safe' because you trust everyone present.  And I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on related topics, such as the suitability of men playing female characters, which I can see regularly leading at some point to exploring the most unfamiliar terrain of that territory whether out of curiosity or prurience, and how you think GMs ought to handle it when it does.

Or in short, anything of practical significance rather than us fighting the great battles of the political sphere here.


----------



## Deset Gled

Rottle said:


> I don't have the words or the idea to solve this.  Every time someone posts how it happened to them I just get more frustrated I cannot stop it.
> 
> ...  Don't get physical or anything just have your phone ready to call for help if that is needed or just be there to assure others they are safe.




You actually just pointed out the best tool available.  Nowadays, a huge chunk of the population is constantly carrying a video camera with them everywhere.  Recording (with either audio or video) any incident is absolutely the best way to prove what really went on.  It helps prove criminal acts to police.  It gives proof to con administrators who struggle with "he said she said" problems.  And sharing evidence (better than just stories) on the internet is an alternative when people in positions of authority don't respond properly.

IMNSHO, the main factor behind many incidents of sexual harassment is that people think there won't be any consequences.  The more that society as a whole learns that our new technology can lead to more consequences for this sort of thing, the less prevalent it will be.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight

What's the line they removed from Minsc?


----------



## Gradine

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]

I think I see a bit more clearly what the issue is. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. The issue is not that you disagree with identity politics. It's possible to disagree with a viewpoint while still respecting it and the place it comes from enough to reach an actual middle ground. It is that you hold the very idea of them (and potentially the people who place great significance in them, though it could just be me ) in contempt. You find them actively harmful to any sort of productive discussion. And frankly, reading your post, I can understand why. Oh, I don't agree with your reasoning in the least bit, I find it a complete mis-characterization of what identity politics are and why they matter, and I could spell out any number of reasons why, but those wouldn't be pertinent to the discussion and you don't seem to really want to have it in the first place. Understand, though, that when you say you're not willing to budge an inch then you are not actually trying to reach a middle ground on the issue at all. We're at an impasse, because frankly my views on the subject are as intractable as yours.

Moving on to a fruitful seeming topic of discussion, you raise an exceptionally important point on the subject of consent at gaming tables. I certainly try to make it clear at my table what sorts of topics are or are not going to be present or acceptable in my game, and it does vary based on campaign and player makeup. For instance, I hope to run Curse of Strahd soon(ish...) for my players, a group which includes my partner. She just gave birth to our daughter last year and still has a great deal of sensitivity to notion of children being in danger (or actually dying). Spoilers if you haven't read CoS, but there are a lot of children in danger of, or actually, dying, or having already died. That's a conversation I plan on having with her (and really everyone) and if necessary I will either make adjustments as necessary or perhaps she (or others) might sit the campaign out, or I may just decide to scrap the whole thing and come up with something else. Like you I prefer gaming with friends infinitely more than gaming with strangers, and I'd rather run a campaign my friends will have fun with and feel comfortable playing. I feel like these types of conversations (individually or with the group) will also resolve many of the issues that can be present with a player playing a PC of a different gender or sexuality from their own before they crop up.

While obviously this would be more intensive process with myself and my friends; I think a very basic and less-spoilery approach to this consent building would be more than appropriate from game store or con games, and woudl go a long way towards making them more approachable to people whose experiences would make them less inclined to give them a try (while also signalling to people who would otherwise engage in harassment or other uncouth behavior that it won't be tolerated at this table).


----------



## billd91

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> What's the line they removed from Minsc?




It was a joke satirizing GamerGate. And it got people whining about disrupting a well-written character in favor of social justice campaigning. I think it might come across as excessively dating if the game's still being played by anyone 10 years from now, but that's about it. It's not like Minsc isn't written for comedy in the first place with his relationship with his miniature giant space hamster. I think people just don't like being the butt of the joke and are falling back on the "poorly written" criticism in order to duck that assessment.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight

What was the actual joke? the censor machine must be in full swing as I can't actually find the damn quote!!!  LOL


----------



## MechaPilot

Celebrim said:


> I've heard these horror stories many times, and I can't relate them to my play very well at all.  In general, D&D doesn't generally allow players to be captured all that easily.  It's far easier to kill players than capture them.  That's probably a good thing.




I would suggest that it's the DM handwaving death into capture.  I've handwaved death into capture several times, but that's because I think party death is boring (it really does cause the game to grind to an immediate halt).  However, when I do it, I don't have the PCs raped by their captors.  I'll have them ransomed back to their families (or a wealthy patron).  I'll have them stripped of gear and left for dead.  I'll have them geased to carry out a mission for their captors.  I'll turn the jailbreak into a mini adventure.  In short, things that keep the characters alive but further the story of the characters.




Celebrim said:


> I wouldn't be comfortable going into the details of a sexual scene with a friend, and any time any sexual contact occurs, it tends to be handwaved with, "You may assume whatever you think would occur, did occur." and we bang to a further scene.




I think many tables have a "fade to black" preference for things they aren't comfortable with.  For some this is just the actual sex scene, for others it also includes the preceding seduction.  I know that I personally fade to black for interrogation scenes: I've found that roleplaying interrogation scenes all too often turns into torture-porn.  I also fade to black for sex scenes: whether I do so or not for the seduction/romance part depends on the type of campaign that I'm running at the time.




Celebrim said:


> That said though, I wouldn't mind forking out at some point to discussing consent issues at a gaming table, just because I can think of situations that have come up in play - always handled with a handwave as I said - which were to my mind at least parallel to rape either of male or female characters (to be feasted on by a vampire, for example).   And I would love to have your thoughts on such situations, and how they ought to be handled, and whether players ought to be protected from them, and whether it matters if it is occurring in a spot that has already been established as 'safe' because you trust everyone present.  And I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on related topics, such as the suitability of men playing female characters, which I can see regularly leading at some point to exploring the most unfamiliar terrain of that territory whether out of curiosity or prurience, and how you think GMs ought to handle it when it does.
> 
> Or in short, anything of practical significance rather than us fighting the great battles of the political sphere here.




Sure.  I don't know if you want to start a different thread or continue here (the subjects are somewhat related as you say), but I'll start by talking about men playing female characters.

Men playing female characters can lead to some offensive stereotypes at the table (emphasis on "can."  I am definitely not saying "will").  As one example, I recall one man (the step-brother of a friend who had joined us for a few game sessions) who played a female character at the same table as myself.  He played her fairly normally, and then after a few in-game days the character started fighting with the rest of the party (mostly verbal, but at one point physically).  When the DM, who was the male friend of mine, asked his step-brother what was up with the character's sudden personality change, the step-brother replied, "I'm acting in character!  She's just on the rag."  More than one facepalm ensued.

Occasional offensive stereotypes aside, I generally like when men play female characters.  When a man has a female character and he is actively trying to be/stay in character, you often get the truest glimpse of what that man thinks a woman is really like.  It's always particularly enlightening when those character choices include wild mood/emotional swings, sluttyness/nymphomania, or being a cold-hearted


----------



## flametitan

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> What was the actual joke? the censor machine must be in full swing as I can't actually find the damn quote!!!  LOL




It was something along the lines of "Actually it's about ethics in Adventuring."

A fairly harmless but satirical line.


----------



## Gradine

http://www.nsvrc.org/bystander-intervention-background-and-general-information

Bystander invention is a fairly politics-neutral method towards addressing harassment and violence in any type of community. It's kind of the big new things on college campuses the last few years (disclaimer: I work at a university. Shocker, no?) and one of its key selling points is that while it does require buy-in from many members of a community to be effective it doesn't require any further buy-in on any other sort of divisive political issue (like addressing any potential underlying societal issues or "rape culture"). That tends to be why I think it falls woefully short as a long-term solution, but in the short-term it's proven to be pretty effective. I think introducing concepts of bystander intervention to convention monitors (and ultimately more con attendees) would be a pretty good first step.


----------



## Fildrigar

Libramarian said:


> Out of curiosity, I noticed that you capitalized the word "women" multiple times in your post, but you didn't capitalize the word "men". Why did you do that?



English capitalization rules mystify me. Sometimes I misspell things, too. did I misspell anything in my post? Any sentences end with prepositions? I may have used two spaces after punctuation. 



Libramarian said:


> Where's the proof that she's received death/rape threats from Wyrd staff members?



If you look through her Tumblr, she has some screen caps of some of the harassing messages she's received. Some have Wyrd employee's names attached. But since they're screen caps, and made of pixels, I'm sure you would just say they're 'shopped.


----------



## Obryn

flametitan said:


> It was something along the lines of "Actually it's about ethics in Adventuring."
> 
> A fairly harmless but satirical line.



Yeah, certainly no goofier than Simpsons jokes.


----------



## Elf Witch

The underlining cause of the harassment is simple it is good ole sexism coupled with entitled men feeling that they have a right to a woman attention's and body because they are attracted to her. 

Sexism is very much a part of geek hobbies. Someone pointed out the comments on the new Rogue One trailer and I went and looked and I couldn't believe the whines of feminism out control and how Disney has ruined Star Wars by social engineering. All because in two films the lead have been females. Though in my mind Finn got as much screen time as Rey. They bring up crap like you will never see women being Navy seals and leading troops in combat so this is not realistic. There is rage about it like some how having female lead has ruined their fandom. 

Even before any trailer came out about the Ghostbusters film the nerdrage from angry men was poring out any place the film was mentioned. Like some how changing things up and having three women instead of three men was a personal affront and that the evil feminist and SJW entire goal was to ruin this film for them.

And you see this kind of rage a lot. When Mojo started MSMojo the anger from the cis white male geeks was apparent like some how having a channel run by women for women geeks was a  personal affront and  whose sole purpose was to take something away from them. 

Then you add to the mix these young men who believe in the whole pick up artist culture. Who are told by other men that they have a right to have sex with any woman and that some how if a woman is not interested than she is a broken and only wants a bad boy not a good guy. These guys really believe they are good guys but they are not they are entitled selfish jerks. A lot of their rage is directed at attractive women who they feel they are entitled to and since you are seeing more women joining geek hobbies the percentage of attractive women has risen and the rage that these guys feel towards these women joining the hobby and still not being interested in them is huge.

You take all this anger directed at women and that is where harassment and violence comes from.  

Women can't change it if we speak up and try to explain why they are wrong they are not going to listen the only one who can change this is other men.

I was on a Marvel Agents of SHIELD page and the sheer amount of hate directed at Simmons for having emotions for the guy on the planet she was trapped was over whelming a lot of the guys were calling her a slut any female fan who spoke up for her got dog piled. I know some of the guys on the page and asked them why they didn't speak up when they disagreed with these guys and they said they didn't want to get involved that it would do no good and what does it matter it is only a TV show.The main reason for the hate was how dare that slut put Fitz in the friend zone. They feel the same about the other slut Daisy she had no right to have slept with her old boy friend because Fitz liked her. They honestly believe if a guy likes a gal then she has no autonomy she must give herself to him. 

Guys need to speak up when they see stuff like that. They need to call out the gate keepers of their fandoms who try and force female fans to prove their geek cred.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> Occasional offensive stereotypes aside, I generally like when men play female characters.  When a man has a female character and he is actively trying to be/stay in character, you often get the truest glimpse of what that man thinks a woman is really like.  It's always particularly enlightening when those character choices include wild mood/emotional swings, sluttyness/nymphomania, or being a cold-hearted




I played a female character who was ALL of those things...but it was also 100% clear that the character in question was essentially a female modern Sci-fant analog of certain classic male fantasy literature characters everyone in the group knew.  The shoe on the other foot, as it were.

Very popular character.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I played a female character who was ALL of those things...but it was also 100% clear that the character in question was essentially a female modern Sci-fant analog of certain classic male fantasy literature characters everyone in the group knew.  The shoe on the other foot, as it were.
> 
> Very popular character.




Well, I think we've all played at least one character who was a parody, a slightly altered version of a film or literature character, or who was something of a commentary on a stereotype.

I remember playing a black male mercenary character in Rifts who was basically a post apocalyptic version of Shaft.  His name was Leroy Brown, and he was the baddest merc' in the whole dang town (of Free Quebec).

I also recall a friend and I both deciding to play Crazies in one Rifts campaign.  We made them a brother & sister version of the Blues Brothers, with one of their insanities being that they literally thought they were on a mission from God.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'd have loved to see that.

IME, when players can come up with interlinked PCs, it usually leads to fun times.  

One of the last times I had a chance to do that was when I played a giant dwarf warrior (@ 5'8" tall) who was best buds and battle partner with a dwarf giant warrior (@ 6'3").


----------



## MechaPilot

I think it was pretty fun, and the friend who played my character's brother said he enjoyed it as well.  When you have two people who commit to playing characters that heavily interact with each other like that I do think it tends to add to everyone's enjoyment at the table, but that's just my personal theory.

The only downside to it was that my knowledge of blues and R&B music is mostly limited to what I've heard in the original Blues brothers movie.  Just this day, which was a payday for me, I thought of that  movie.  Every time I go to the bank to deposit my check I'm reminded of the "I've got 50 cents more than I'm gonna keep" line from Let the Good Times Roll.

Edit: I never did get to have that in D&D though.  I feel that's a missed opportunity.  Hopefully I'll be able to rectify that eventually.


----------



## Libramarian

DEFCON 1 said:


> Listen.  And believe.  Just by starting there, we might very well be on the right path to maybe seeing things get better.





Gradine said:


> A lot of the "talking past each other" issue  comes down a matter of belief. Either you believe the stories women  share about their varied experiences with harassment[...]or you don't  believe them, in which you are completely dismissing their lived  experiences[...]



There's an almost religious fervor in your posts that is creeping me out. "Listen...believe...have faith...submit..." 

I find the exhortation to 'just believe' repellant, not just because the willful stupidity involved but because it infantilizes women to consider them incapable of lying or trolling for their own aggrandizement.

There is a third option to belief and denial: skepticism. One is skeptical when they're withholding belief but open to changing their mind as further evidence comes to light.

I believe this woman received threats for her opinions on the Malifaux game. I'm skeptical they came from Wyrd staff.

I believe she was harassed by a regular customer at the game store she worked at, and the owner didn't do enough to stop it. I'm glad he was reprimanded. I believe she has been groped at cons. That's awful and I support measures such as those mentioned by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread to try to make game stores and cons as safe and welcoming as possible for all.

I'm skeptical that a Canadian police officer told a woman reporting a rape "I'm not writing a report for a drunk slut" and hung up on her. I'm skeptical that a group of middle-aged men in a game store chanted in unison sexually abusive language to a thirteen year old girl and laughed as she ran away. This stuff is out of a '70s horror movie, not real life Winnipeg.

I've been reading the thread about this on the Malifaux game forum. At one point she says "men are worse than babies because at least babies know what breasts are for" (and this is a thread where the most inflammatory posts have been deleted!). On her Tumblr she says "gamers are the scum of the earth" and "nerds are the literal worst". She was not driven away from this game because she's a woman and they want it to be for men only. She was driven away because she demanded changes to the game that most of the other fans disagreed with and she trolled them for disagreeing with her.

I DO NOT condone threats of violence as a means to silence someone! But I think she should have been banned from their forum for trolling before that happened.


----------



## Libramarian

Fildrigar said:


> English capitalization rules mystify me. Sometimes I misspell things, too. did I misspell anything in my post? Any sentences end with prepositions? I may have used two spaces after punctuation.



Just wondering if you meant to do that 




> If you look through her Tumblr, she has some screen caps of some of the harassing messages she's received. Some have Wyrd employee's names attached. But since they're screen caps, and made of pixels, I'm sure you would just say they're 'shopped.




I looked through all 11 pages of posts with the Malifaux tag and couldn't find any screencaps.

The owner of Wyrd says that they've repeatedly asked for evidence that one of their employees threatened her, but have never received it.

I think they should consider suing her for defamation.


----------



## Libramarian

Rechan said:


> Last week, Baldur's Gate 2 received a DLC, Siege of Dragonspear. In it, there's a character who in a few lines of dialogue, mentions that they are transgender. The response has not been pleasant. The argument is that A) tthe existence of a trans character in the game is a break of suspension of disbelief, and 2) the inclusion of one is facilitating an agenda.




I've been looking into this as well. Both of those claims look fair to me.

A) It seems for many the trans character is not the most irritating part, it's the fact that they changed a NPC companion's personality from one who flirts with men to manipulate them, to one who mocks and bullies men into doing what she wants. The game is set between Baldur's Gate I and II, so this character has the former personality in the first game, then her personality changes for this game, and then it changes back for the second game. This certainly would strain one's suspension of disbelief.

2)(sic) One of the writers of the game has publicly stated that her goal is to remove sexist elements from the original Baldur's Gate. So they literally are pushing an agenda.


----------



## Obryn

Libramarian said:


> There is a third option to belief and denial: skepticism. One is skeptical when they're withholding belief but open to changing their mind as further evidence comes to light.



So let's zoom out a bit, okay?

Instead of getting all Zapruder Film on a single blog post, can we acknowledge that there's a rather constant stream of first-hand experiences of harassment, groping, sexual assault, etc. from women gamers?  Both in this thread and in others? Not everyone's experienced it, just like not everyone's harassed women.

Big picture here. Adding this to the rest of the evidence, are they just making it up?



Libramarian said:


> 2)(sic) One of the writers of the game has publicly stated that her goal is to remove sexist elements from the original Baldur's Gate. So they literally are pushing an agenda.



That agenda would be ...?

I mean, "Let's be less sexist than we were in the 90's" sounds like a pretty fair goal?


----------



## MechaPilot

Libramarian said:


> I believe she was harassed by a regular customer at the game store she worked at, and the owner didn't do enough to stop it. I'm glad he was reprimanded. I believe she has been groped at cons. That's awful and I support measures such as those mentioned by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread to try to make game stores and cons as safe and welcoming as possible for all.
> 
> I'm skeptical that a Canadian police officer told a woman reporting a rape "I'm not writing a report for a drunk slut" and hung up on her. I'm skeptical that a group of middle-aged men in a game store chanted in unison sexually abusive language to a thirteen year old girl and laughed as she ran away. This stuff is out of a '70s horror movie, not real life Winnipeg.
> 
> I've been reading the thread about this on the Malifaux game forum. At one point she says "men are worse than babies because at least babies know what breasts are for" (and this is a thread where the most inflammatory posts have been deleted!). On her Tumblr she says "gamers are the scum of the earth" and "nerds are the literal worst". She was not driven away from this game because she's a woman and they want it to be for men only. She was driven away because she demanded changes to the game that most of the other fans disagreed with and she trolled them for disagreeing with her.
> 
> I DO NOT condone threats of violence as a means to silence someone! But I think she should have been banned from their forum for trolling before that happened.




If a woman has been groped, the men and babies re: breasts comparison makes a great deal of sense for her to make, particularly while exasperated about the topic of sexual harassment/assault.  The biological purpose of breasts is to feed babies after all.

As for your disbelief about the cop and the chant, I can't speak to what Winnipeg is like, but real life can very much be just as horrific as a horror film.  Recall that Texas Chainsaw Massacre (a 1970s horror film) had elements inspired by real life murderer Ed Gein.  Also, you should be aware that cops are not paragons of humanity.  I'm sure we can all find articles online about cops who abused their authority by sexually assaulting women.  If some cops are willing to sexually assault the women they pull over (and some very much are), then it's not much of a stretch at all to consider that some cops might react to a claim of rape as was described.

We also really don't know what experiences precede her supposed comments about gamers being scum and nerds being the worst (I say supposed because I am not going to scour her tumblr and other sites to try to disprove what she said in the article linked in the OP).  We do not have a timeline of the harassment/assaults that's she's received and her comments about nerds and gamers.

Ultimately, we know for a fact that the terrorism against her occurred.  Whether Wyrd was complicit or not in the terrorism against her is irrelevant to the existence of the problem of women being harassed and/or assaulted by members of the gaming community, a problem whose existence has been corroborated by multiple sources, including members of this forum.


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:


> I've heard these horror stories many times, and I can't relate them to my play very well at all.  In general, D&D doesn't generally allow players to be captured all that easily.  It's far easier to kill players than capture them.  That's probably a good thing.
> 
> It's very hard for me to get into the heads of anyone in the scene you describe.  I have no idea what the motivations were, whether prurient, clueless, or to inflict degradation on a stranger.  It just seems strange to me, not the least of which that they would be comfortable to play out a scene such as that with a complete stranger.  I wouldn't be comfortable going into the details of a sexual scene with a friend, and any time any sexual contact occurs, it tends to be handwaved with, "You may assume whatever you think would occur, did occur." and we bang to a further scene.
> 
> I'll say this though, I've never once had a good experience gaming with strangers, and the only time I've ever played with strangers more than once, it was because I was the GM and I organized the group... and knew within 15 minutes that it was going to be a disaster, but continued for a few sessions out of my sense of obligation.   In my experience, RPing - at least the part that isn't simply wargaming - is too intimate and too intense of an activity even when it isn't discussing sexual matters to do well and comfortably among strangers face to face.
> 
> That said though, I wouldn't mind forking out at some point to discussing consent issues at a gaming table, just because I can think of situations that have come up in play - always handled with a handwave as I said - which were to my mind at least parallel to rape either of male or female characters (to be feasted on by a vampire, for example).   And I would love to have your thoughts on such situations, and how they ought to be handled, and whether players ought to be protected from them, and whether it matters if it is occurring in a spot that has already been established as 'safe' because you trust everyone present.  And I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on related topics, such as the suitability of men playing female characters, which I can see regularly leading at some point to exploring the most unfamiliar terrain of that territory whether out of curiosity or prurience, and how you think GMs ought to handle it when it does.
> 
> Or in short, anything of practical significance rather than us fighting the great battles of the political sphere here.




But, what you're saying here pretty much dovetails with the original article's author.  Why don't you play with strangers?  If gamers are this welcoming community as others have claimed, shouldn't your experiences be very much an outlier?  Thing is, they aren't.  I 100% agree with you.  Playing with strangers is very often a terrible experience.  It goes from bad to worse.

So, why would you be surprised and why can you not relate to these experiences?  If every time you've played with strangers it's been a bad experience, why would you expect other's experiences to be better?


----------



## Hussar

Libramarian said:


> /snip
> 
> 2)(sic) One of the writers of the game has publicly stated that her goal is to remove sexist elements from the original Baldur's Gate. So they literally are pushing an agenda.




As was asked, what agenda is that?


----------



## Celebrim

MechaPilot said:


> I would suggest that it's the DM handwaving death into capture.  I've handwaved death into capture several times, but that's because I think party death is boring (it really does cause the game to grind to an immediate halt).  However, when I do it, I don't have the PCs raped by their captors.  I'll have them ransomed back to their families (or a wealthy patron).  I'll have them stripped of gear and left for dead.  I'll have them geased to carry out a mission for their captors.  I'll turn the jailbreak into a mini adventure.  In short, things that keep the characters alive but further the story of the characters.




I guess this has never really been an issue because I never really handwave away rules.  I might handwave away scenes that don't need to be played out, but things that actually effect the state of the character like whether you are captured or not don't get handwaved.  And to the extent that they did happen, I'd try to turn it into an opportunity for the story to continue

But I admit I'm a bit troubled by a hard and firm rule that captives never get raped, because rape is unfortunately a pretty likely result of capture - particularly for women - but for men as well in many cases.  And while I have no desire to play out such a scenario, it feels a bit odd to overlook the possibility, and a great many stories - both fictional and taken from history - involve rape or the threat of it.  The "Shawshank Redemption" is a completely different story without rape.  Rape plays a critical role in "Lawrence of Arabia".  The truth is, soldiers are often raped.  The scene in Lawrence of Arabia is based among other things off the historical fact that the Turkish army was rather infamous for using sodomy as a tool of humiliation and control of its subjugated peoples, captives and enemies.   Real historical warfare between ancient peoples regularly involves rape as a tool of warfare and genocide.  That sort of thing is occurring to the present day.  Now, as I said, I've never felt the need to explore any of this in an RPG meant for fun, and if I did, I'd try to handle it sensitively - by suggestion, with "fade to black" - and not graphically.  But I'm a bit troubled by a hard and fast "no rape in your content rule", because I try to run games that work as more than just games and have - I'd like to think - some literary or philosophical heft to them at times.  

On the other hand, I even more back such a rule for Conventions and Gaming Stores than I would a no harassment policy.  There are some subjects that do not need to be raised in public society amongst strangers, and there ought to be a reasonable assumption that - for lack of a better term - gaming tables will adhere to a "PG-13" standard during Conventions.  To my mind, that just should be a hard no violations rule, and certainly if I was running one I'd insist on, not merely because of my own sense of right and wrong - but it just seems a good way to avoid litigation and bad publicity.



> I know that I personally fade to black for interrogation scenes: I've found that roleplaying interrogation scenes all too often turns into torture-porn.




I can see that.  I don't think I've ever had a player that really that seemed infatuated with violence, but if I did, I'd avoid graphic depictions so as to not be a source of unhealthy thoughts for them.  In the same way, if I knew I had a player who had for reasons of history, extra cause to be sensitive to the subject of rape, I'd handle it with extra sensitivity so as to not provoke unhealthy fear or agitation in them.  And of course, if I had a new player I didn't know at all, everything would be handled with extra sensitivity until I got a feel for them.   This seems to me like just basic manners and decency.  I don't know much about the rules of "feminism" of the nth wave, but it seems to me that it ought to be enough to try to respect everyone in the room.  So, as actually happened, if one of my players has a family member die IRL, and they say to me, "You know, right now, the plot line we've been having with my character's father just is too intense.  I don't think I can handle it right now.", then of course I put the plot on hold until they are ready.  

I literally can't imagine what a GM was thinking that was so insensitive to not pick up on your distress and change the scene.  It is just appallingly rude.  The whole scene you describe has to get pushed out into my, "Does not compute." mental space just to keep my famously Spock like circuits from frying.  Every time I try to contemplate what you described in your horror story, it makes me go, "Who are these people?"  What rock did you kick over to find such a group? 



> Sure.  I don't know if you want to start a different thread or continue here




The only reason I'd go to a different thread is that I feel that the essayist doesn't start this conversation in a very good place, and its distracting from any actual learning taking place.



> Men playing female characters can lead to some offensive stereotypes at the table (emphasis on "can."  I am definitely not saying "will").  As one example, I recall one man (the step-brother of a friend who had joined us for a few game sessions) who played a female character at the same table as myself.  He played her fairly normally, and then after a few in-game days the character started fighting with the rest of the party (mostly verbal, but at one point physically).  When the DM, who was the male friend of mine, asked his step-brother what was up with the character's sudden personality change, the step-brother replied, "I'm acting in character!  She's just on the rag."  More than one facepalm ensued.




I'd like to say this was a humorous story of a player's immaturity and stupidity, but I suppose if you encounter that sort of stupidity often enough, like anything it stops being funny.

For example, as a personal matter, I cringe whenever a stranger observes "Your really smart" or some similar thing.  I know the person isn't trying to be hideously insensitive and I know they don't know what they are saying, but to me they might as well called me an SOB.  It still hurts.   And they aren't even throwing a lens or frame on me that would normally be taken as negative or denigrating.



> Occasional offensive stereotypes aside, I generally like when men play female characters.  When a man has a female character and he is actively trying to be/stay in character, you often get the truest glimpse of what that man thinks a woman is really like.  It's always particularly enlightening when those character choices include wild mood/emotional swings, sluttyness/nymphomania, or being a cold-hearted




It's hard or impossible for me to tell how typical my experiences have been.  I find that a certain percentage of players that play a member of the opposite sex play them rigorously asexual.  I suspect a certain percentage of players playing members of the opposite sex are playing out their own romantic fantasy - that is, the sort of person they find attractive at some level.  I know for a fact that both male and female players I've had engaged with NPC's as romantic or erotic objects of fantasy, something that can get awfully uncomfortable for a DM at times (this one especially maybe), even when it just is playing out at the level of romantic or flirtatious dialogue - however chaste or appropriate.  I also have had a certain percentage of players of both sexes that upon 'inhabiting' the body of a PC of the opposite sex, fixate on what is most different about being a member of the opposite sex and immediately want to explore that space.  I have had a fairly large number of PC's, male or female, abused by monsters that are often in literature or myth proxies for sexual horrors - evil fey, vampires, what not.  I know for example at least one female player appeared to be fascinated by Strahd's attentions to her character, for example, handwaved though it was.  But this sort of euphemism for rape is a bit more safe than the actual thing (I think?  Maybe not?  Maybe not for everyone?).  I have had only one case of what we normally think of as rape occurring at my table, and it involved a female player using a male PC to rape the female PC of a female player.  And oddly, they laughed all the way through the scene.

If there was anything I would want anyone to take away from this, it is that I'm far less confident making assertions about this than many people in the thread seem to be.  And I am genuinely curious about how other people view this, if for no other reason that I try very hard to be a skillful GM.  I don't really even know if this discussion itself has left the bounds of good taste, or if I'm being a bit to frank about a subject that needs a more private forum.  If this is too much, let me know, as I don't even know how much consent I need to discuss this sort of issue.  My problem with the idea of a set of "Harassment Rules" for gaming in public spaces, is not so much that I oppose the idea, but I think it likely to be both more problematic to enforce and more likely to go wrong, then a set of "Decency Rules" requiring play to adhere to something like the Comic Code or a "PG-13" or some sort of standard where inflammatory topics were just assumed to be off-limits at least when in the public space.   But in private spaces, I'm not really confident exactly where the laws have to be drawn.  I have some idea where I'd personally feel a line had been crossed, and I have a notion that I should try to respect some other peoples boundaries, but yeah... after that it gets really vague, and the people who seem to think they've got it all figure out and can lecture you as to what is wrong or right to have in a collective story telling session make me vaguely uncomfortable.  And I say that as a staunchly prude, Puritanical, traditional moralist that would feel rather strongly that I can assert what is right or wrong to actually do, as opposed to merely talk about.   It seems to me that motive and presentation are rather important when discussing how story elements are handled.

I fear that my take on this has already been too complicated by having had too many female players and discovering they don't have any single set of standards they are sharing with each other and all agree to.  However, when I hear some female gamers claim that things like pregnant PCs are signs of gross disrespect of women, I start to wonder if I missed something, and secretly some friend of mine has been fuming the whole time but afraid to tell me.  So, I admit confusion.  On the one hand, much of what I'm hearing just sounds wrong and coming from a strange place.  On the other hand, I don't want to get this sort of thing wrong, since it's a bit more important than a game actually is.

Sorry for the meandering steam of consciousness here.  I generally try to be more organized in my thinking.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> Big picture here. Adding this to the rest of the evidence, are they just making it up?




Yes, no, and maybe.  I'm sure a lot of the complaints are legitimate.  I'm sure some are real, but embellished (still bad, obviously).  I'm sure some aren't real, and are just the result of people over reacting.  And I'm sure are a few are just plain made up.

One of the issues facing us, or at least the more skeptical of us, is that we're dealing mostly with anecdotal evidence.  Worse, much of the anecdotal evidence is anonymous.  There's a reason why our legal system allows us to face our accusers.  Yes, sometimes it can be very hard for the victim, but never-the-less is of great importance to accurately determining exactly what's going on.  I do wonder how many of these stories could be dispelled if the other party was aware of the accusations being made and could offer up their side of the story.  It very well could be zero, perhaps 100% were accurately reported.  Or, perhaps, some aren't what they appear to be.  Also, what portion of the overall interactions within our community are like this?  Is it any more than what the average person experiences in the average Western society?  Don't get me wrong, one incident is too much, but if for this to be a  problem specifically facing our hobby one would assume that its some degree worse than what society is as a whole.




			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> That agenda would be ...?
> 
> I mean, "Let's be less sexist than we were in the 90's" sounds like a pretty fair goal?




It would all depend on what they thought sexism was.  Honestly, I've seen non-parody blogs and articles about how some of the most innocent and subtle things are sexist.  A man smiling at a woman?  Sexist, because he probably wouldn't smile at another guy and is therefore treating men and women different.

It seems both sides of this issue, or at least elements of both sides of this issue, are guilty of this.  If a female character is portrayed in a certain manner in a game today, it's not uncommon to see a wave of complaints about sexism aimed at producers, developers, fans, etc.  Likewise, as we've seen with the latest expansion of Baldur's Gate, you can see a wave of complaints when the mark is shifted too far in the opposite direction.

Then there's another angle entirely, does it really matter?  Do games have an effect on real life?  If not, then is it really an issue we should concern ourselves with as much as we currently are?


----------



## Celebrim

Hussar said:


> But, what you're saying here pretty much dovetails with the original article's author.  Why don't you play with strangers?  If gamers are this welcoming community as others have claimed, shouldn't your experiences be very much an outlier?




You are rather leaping to conclusions here in a desperate hope of trying to catch me in something.  I don't assert that I've ever been mistreated by strangers, deliberately denigrated, or picked on or the like.  The very fact that the groups were willing to welcome a stranger into their private activities and play space I would be a louse not to have some gratitude for.  In many cases the individuals were quite kind and gracious and as welcoming as they could be under the circumstances.

But I find standards of behavior, standards of content, standards of aesthetics of play, and standards of maturity just vary too widely from table to table.  If anything, it's unfair of me to have the expectation that some other table will necessarily cater to my tastes.  So one table might delve overtly into occult material I feel uncomfortable with.  Another table is content with traditional "beer and pretzels" play, where you kick the doors down, kill the orcs, take there stuff, and never get tired of doing it over and over - while often as not joking around and using the occasion as simply focus for socializing.  Another table might turn out to be filled with people who are painfully autistic even by my nerdy standards, so that I can't quite gel with them.  One table might be far more comfortable with casual profanities than I am.  Another might be entirely power-gamers that enjoy imposing their will on the game and blowing away every obstacle with ease.  One group had a DM who thought he was great at extemporeous play... and he just wasn't.  Another DM was so purist about metagaming, he refused to let the players see their own character sheets.  And so on and so forth.   In some cases, I don't actually have a problem with how that table chose to play, it just happened to not be my thing.



> Thing is, they aren't.  I 100% agree with you.  Playing with strangers is very often a terrible experience.  It goes from bad to worse.




Yes, but unless the table is doing something utterly morally repugnant, who is to say the problem isn't mine?  Obviously they are enjoying themselves.



> So, why would you be surprised and why can you not relate to these experiences?  If every time you've played with strangers it's been a bad experience, why would you expect other's experiences to be better?




It's one thing to not expect another's experiences to be good.  It's quite another to expect some other gamer to be in fear for their own safety, or to be subject to harassment or abuse.


----------



## Taneras

Gradine said:


> A lot of the "talking past each other" issue comes down a matter of belief. Either you believe the stories women share about their varied experiences with harassment, threatened and/or real violence, and sexual assault, in which you sort of have to acknowledge that there is a problem and something ought to be done about it; or you don't believe them, in which you are completely dismissing their lived experiences and therefore should not be surprised that your protestations of "I don't agree..." or "I don't believe..." are met with the likes of "You don't seem to understand..." You are saying you don't believe in something that is actual fact, something that actually has happened and still happens.




Now apply this to the following scenario.

Person A claims Person B grabbed their breast.

Person B claims that they did not grab Person A's breast.

You've listened to both, now which do you believe?  If you believe Person A, by your own reasoning, you're "completely dismissing" Person B's "lived experiences".  If you believe Person B, then you're doing the same thing to Person A.  These claims are mutually exclusive and therefore both cannot be true.  At the end of the day you're dismissing someone's personal experiences, or as you put it, "something that is actual fact".

That's why I really dislike that whole mentality of dismissing someone's personal experiences.  I don't think that mindset its a useful tool that helps us solve these sorts of problems.


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> Yes, no, and maybe.  I'm sure a lot of the complaints are legitimate.  I'm sure some are real, but embellished (still bad, obviously).  I'm sure some aren't real, and are just the result of people over reacting.  And I'm sure are a few are just plain made up.
> 
> One of the issues facing us, or at least the more skeptical of us, is that we're dealing mostly with anecdotal evidence.  Worse, much of the anecdotal evidence is anonymous.  There's a reason why our legal system allows us to face our accusers.  Yes, sometimes it can be very hard for the victim, but never-the-less is of great importance to accurately determining exactly what's going on.  I do wonder how many of these stories could be dispelled if the other party was aware of the accusations being made and could offer up their side of the story.  It very well could be zero, perhaps 100% were accurately reported.  Or, perhaps, some aren't what they appear to be.  Also, what portion of the overall interactions within our community are like this?  Is it any more than what the average person experiences in the average Western society?  Don't get me wrong, one incident is too much, but if for this to be a  problem specifically facing our hobby one would assume that its some degree worse than what society is as a whole.



All evidence is that, yes, there is a specific problem in the gaming/fantasy/anime/etc. fandom. Nerd hobbies, so to speak. Look up 'cosplay is not consent' for example.

The 'facing your accusers' bit is fine if you're the accused and you're in court. That's not what's going on here, unless you are the one specifically being accused of something. Which as far as I can tell you aren't.

It's also weird to demand this amount of evidence about personal experiences. I mean, it seems like 'women describing harassment' gets placed under a certain very special sort of scrutiny that is otherwise reserved for actual criminal cases in a court rather than a discussion online.  I mean, if I said, "I went to Gen Con and my wallet got stolen," you're not going to go around and demand I show the police reports.



> Then there's another angle entirely, does it really matter?  Do games have an effect on real life?  If not, then is it really an issue we should concern ourselves with as much as we currently are?



Well, it's definitely a big enough deal that the women it's affecting say it's a big deal. The fact that it's not a big deal to you doesn't mean that you get to shut down the discussion.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> All evidence is that, yes, there is a specific problem in the gaming/fantasy/anime/etc. fandom. Nerd hobbies, so to speak. Look up 'cosplay is not consent' for example.




All we have is anecdotal evidence, and we have that pointing in two different directions.  Some people say that they see it a lot and that its rampant, and some people say that they rarely see it and its about on par with what other groups experience.

I think its very disingenuous to pretend that all the evidence is pointing one way or another.  There aren't any statistics backing this up, all we have are people discussing what they themselves have personally experienced.

I'd also like to add that I have a wide variety of interests that I'm heavily involved in (cars, games, fishing, religion/philosophy, football, music, etc.) - I have a great job and have a lot of free time   Unfortunately I've seen this same line in many of the hobbies I participate in.  Not to derail this conversation, while I have opinions on religion I'm perfectly tolerant on peaceful people's views, but go look at atheism and "atheism+".  A lot of other groups are all of a sudden having these same sorts of issues.



Obryn said:


> The 'facing your accusers' bit is fine if you're the accused and you're in court. That's not what's going on here, unless you are the one specifically being accused of something. Which as far as I can tell you aren't.




There's a reason why its done in court, its not some value that was arbitrarily plucked out of the air.



Obryn said:


> It's also weird to demand this amount of evidence about personal experiences. I mean, it seems like 'women describing harassment' gets placed under a certain very special sort of scrutiny that is otherwise reserved for actual criminal cases in a court rather than a discussion online.  I mean, if I said, "I went to Gen Con and my wallet got stolen," you're not going to go around and demand I show the police reports.




Do you think if the roles were reversed, and you had men claiming that women were groping them at these events, that you'd have the entire community just nodding their heads in agreement that of course this happened just as they stated?  Again I'm not in the crowd that says this never happens.  I think it does, but I'm merely asking to what extent?



Obryn said:


> Well, it's definitely a big enough deal that the women it's affecting say it's a big deal. The fact that it's not a big deal to you doesn't mean that you get to shut down the discussion.




If there are no objective societal ills coming from sexism in games (even if we assume that all claims of sexism are actually instances of sexism), what makes this different from me not liking green beans?  Without objective harm this seems to come down to just a difference in tastes.  If this is just a difference in tastes get in line because I'm a mustang fan and I think camaros are ugly  and that's a really big issue that's facing our society that we need to be made aware of!


----------



## MechaPilot

Celebrim said:


> But I admit I'm a bit troubled by a hard and firm rule that captives never get raped, because rape is unfortunately a pretty likely result of capture - particularly for women - but for men as well in many cases.  And while I have no desire to play out such a scenario, it feels a bit odd to overlook the possibility, and a great many stories - both fictional and taken from history - involve rape or the threat of it.
> 
> /snip
> 
> Now, as I said, I've never felt the need to explore any of this in an RPG meant for fun, and if I did, I'd try to handle it sensitively - by suggestion, with "fade to black" - and not graphically.  But I'm a bit troubled by a hard and fast "no rape in your content rule", because I try to run games that work as more than just games and have - I'd like to think - some literary or philosophical heft to them at times.




I don't feel that the reality of a thing is any kind of valid reason for it not being desirable to bar that thing from a game.  There are a LOT of realities that games and gamers gloss over for the sake of simplicity, fun, and overall personal levels of comfort at the table:

1) Having to urinate and defecate is a reality: as a DM I don't make my PCs tell me the intricacies of how they are evacuating their waste.

2) The general inability for different species to interbreed is a reality: as a DM I have no problem allowing half-elves and half-orcs.

3) Getting a severe infection from a scratch because of a medieval understanding of hygene and medicine is a reality: as a DM I don't make my players roll for infection checks every time they get cut.

4) VD and pregnancy are realities for sexually active characters: as a DM I don't care to make or force VD checks when a PC spends some downtime at a brothel, and I don't make pregnancy an issue for sexually active female characters unless the player says she's interested in having her character become pregnant.

5) Dental problems are a reality: as a DM, I don't enforce checks for cavities, gingivitis, etc. or give the PCs bad breath if they don't tell me they somehow brush their teeth and/or gargle (with whiskey I guess.  I don't really know what they'd use.  I have heard that urine was actually used as a teeth whitener in ancient times.  Which.  Ew.).

Etc.





Celebrim said:


> On the other hand, I even more back such a rule for Conventions and Gaming Stores than I would a no harassment policy.  There are some subjects that do not need to be raised in public society amongst strangers, and there ought to be a reasonable assumption that - for lack of a better term - gaming tables will adhere to a "PG-13" standard during Conventions.  To my mind, that just should be a hard no violations rule, and certainly if I was running one I'd insist on, not merely because of my own sense of right and wrong - but it just seems a good way to avoid litigation and bad publicity.




That sounds sensible to me.





Celebrim said:


> I don't know much about the rules of "feminism" of the nth wave, but it seems to me that it ought to be enough to try to respect everyone in the room.  So, as actually happened, if one of my players has a family member die IRL, and they say to me, "You know, right now, the plot line we've been having with my character's father just is too intense.  I don't think I can handle it right now.", then of course I put the plot on hold until they are ready.




I don't know much about the different waves of feminism.  I call myself, and am, an old-school feminist because I follow the original feminist ideal of all genders being equal under the law.  I've heard about some extremists who call themselves feminists, and I refuse to acknowledge them.  I'm not going to abandon our word to extremists who claim solidarity with us but pervert our core belief because they want special treatment or are overly sensitive to things like the leaked Joker-Harley slap picture (it's okay if the Joker slaps Harley.  The Joker is not supposed to be a role model.  He's a cool villain, but he is a vile character not worthy of emulating or aspiring to be).

I also applaud the sensitivity you said you would show in your example about the death of a family member.




Celebrim said:


> I literally can't imagine what a GM was thinking that was so insensitive to not pick up on your distress and change the scene.  It is just appallingly rude.  The whole scene you describe has to get pushed out into my, "Does not compute." mental space just to keep my famously Spock like circuits from frying.  Every time I try to contemplate what you described in your horror story, it makes me go, "Who are these people?"  What rock did you kick over to find such a group?




I feel very certain that GM did pick up on my distress: I truly don't believe I could have hid it had I even be inclined to try, which I was not.  I was white as a sheet as he described my character's clothes being cut off her, and I was literally shaking with fear (and then with rage) until I grabbed by things and fled.

As for where I found that group, through my local FLGS, which I never went back to again either.  I didn't want to run into that DM or those other players there, and I didn't want to go back there in case they had shared the story with the staff (who I also didn't know personally, and who may have thought that group was entirely in the right for all I know).




Celebrim said:


> The only reason I'd go to a different thread is that I feel that the essayist doesn't start this conversation in a very good place, and its distracting from any actual learning taking place.




If you want to start a new thread, go ahead.  I'll copy my relevant posts over to it.




Celebrim said:


> I'd like to say this was a humorous story of a player's immaturity and stupidity, but I suppose if you encounter that sort of stupidity often enough, like anything it stops being funny.




Well, I'm a woman.  I've seen my share of menstrual humor from comediennes and other sources, and it's not all that offensive.  The most offensive part was after the session when the player tried to get me to back him up about how he portrayed the character during her time of the month.  He seemed to legitimately think a woman is a kind of monthly ticking time bomb.




Celebrim said:


> For example, as a personal matter, I cringe whenever a stranger observes "Your really smart" or some similar thing.  I know the person isn't trying to be hideously insensitive and I know they don't know what they are saying, but to me they might as well called me an SOB.  It still hurts.   And they aren't even throwing a lens or frame on me that would normally be taken as negative or denigrating.




I don't personally get that, but I also don't like when people say that to me.  I am relatively well educated (ABA, ALA, BAC, all summa cum laude, and currently carrying a 3.90 in my MST program), however I am fortunate in that I have extra time to invest in studying.  I live with my elderly father, we help each other out, and one of the benefits of that is that I only have to work part time to support myself while attending school.  With no children, and no romantic life in sight, I can devote extra time to study to get the high marks that I've earned.  I'm positive there are several people at school who have commented about my being smart, or even a genius in a few cases, who could do just as well if they had the time that I have to devote to studying.





Celebrim said:


> I have had only one case of what we normally think of as rape occurring at my table, and it involved a female player using a male PC to rape the female PC of a female player.  And oddly, they laughed all the way through the scene.




I have to say that I would have walked out on that scene.  I don't get at all what they would have found funny about that.  Of course, I also don't get the appeal that NC erotica has for some folks either.




Celebrim said:


> If there was anything I would want anyone to take away from this, it is that I'm far less confident making assertions about this than many people in the thread seem to be.  And I am genuinely curious about how other people view this, if for no other reason that I try very hard to be a skillful GM.  I don't really even know if this discussion itself has left the bounds of good taste, or if I'm being a bit to frank about a subject that needs a more private forum.  If this is too much, let me know, as I don't even know how much consent I need to discuss this sort of issue.  My problem with the idea of a set of "Harassment Rules" for gaming in public spaces, is not so much that I oppose the idea, but I think it likely to be both more problematic to enforce and more likely to go wrong, then a set of "Decency Rules" requiring play to adhere to something like the Comic Code or a "PG-13" or some sort of standard where inflammatory topics were just assumed to be off-limits at least when in the public space.   But in private spaces, I'm not really confident exactly where the laws have to be drawn.  I have some idea where I'd personally feel a line had been crossed, and I have a notion that I should try to respect some other peoples boundaries, but yeah... after that it gets really vague, and the people who seem to think they've got it all figure out and can lecture you as to what is wrong or right to have in a collective story telling session make me vaguely uncomfortable.  And I say that as a staunchly prude, Puritanical, traditional moralist that would feel rather strongly that I can assert what is right or wrong to actually do, as opposed to merely talk about.   It seems to me that motive and presentation are rather important when discussing how story elements are handled.
> 
> I fear that my take on this has already been too complicated by having had too many female players and discovering they don't have any single set of standards they are sharing with each other and all agree to.  However, when I hear some female gamers claim that things like pregnant PCs are signs of gross disrespect of women, I start to wonder if I missed something, and secretly some friend of mine has been fuming the whole time but afraid to tell me.  So, I admit confusion.  On the one hand, much of what I'm hearing just sounds wrong and coming from a strange place.  On the other hand, I don't want to get this sort of thing wrong, since it's a bit more important than a game actually is.




I have no problems with continuing to discuss all these things with you.  I think it might be better to address one individual concern or concept at a time when possible (because even as I type this I know this post is going to be HUGE on the screen), but I think the discussion itself has value in at lest educating people as to differences in perspectives (if nothing else).


----------



## Obryn

Taneras said:


> All we have is anecdotal evidence, and we have that pointing in two different directions.  Some people say that they see it a lot and that its rampant, and some people say that they rarely see it and its about on par with what other groups experience.
> 
> I think its very disingenuous to pretend that all the evidence is pointing one way or another.  There aren't any statistics backing this up, all we have are people discussing what they themselves have personally experienced.
> 
> I'd also like to add that I have a wide variety of interests that I'm heavily involved in (cars, games, fishing, religion/philosophy, football, music, etc.) - I have a great job and have a lot of free time   Unfortunately I've seen this same line in many of the hobbies I participate in.  Not to derail this conversation, while I have opinions on religion I'm perfectly tolerant on peaceful people's views, but go look at atheism and "atheism+".  A lot of other groups are all of a sudden having these same sorts of issues.



"All of a sudden having" or "finally speaking up about"?

If you want statistics, you can look up the statistics posted upthread about the percentage of women convention-goers who have experienced harassment or assault.



> Do you think if the roles were reversed, and you had men claiming that women were groping them at these events, that you'd have the entire community just nodding their heads in agreement that of course this happened just as they stated?  Again I'm not in the crowd that says this never happens.  I think it does, but I'm merely asking to what extent?



Probably. But that's not what's happening, you'll note. Heck; you've noted it _across other interests_.



> If there are no objective societal ills coming from sexism in games (even if we assume that all claims of sexism are actually instances of sexism), what makes this different from me not liking green beans?  Without objective harm this seems to come down to just a difference in tastes.  If this is just a difference in tastes get in line because I'm a mustang fan and I think camaros are ugly  and that's a really big issue that's facing our society that we need to be made aware of!



Did you actually just compare sexism with disliking green beans?

I want to make sure I am clear before I respond to this, because if so, that's just _wacky._


----------



## Elf Witch

Obryn said:


> "All of a sudden having" or "finally speaking up about"?
> 
> If you want statistics, you can look up the statistics posted upthread about the percentage of women convention-goers who have experienced harassment or assault.
> 
> 
> Probably. But that's not what's happening, you'll note. Heck; you've noted it _across other interests_.
> 
> 
> Did you actually just compare sexism with disliking green beans?
> 
> I want to make sure I am clear before I respond to this, because if so, that's just _wacky._




I read and that and went WTF can he really be that clueless?


----------



## Elf Witch

Taneras said:


> All we have is anecdotal evidence, and we have that pointing in two different directions.  Some people say that they see it a lot and that its rampant, and some people say that they rarely see it and its about on par with what other groups experience.
> 
> I think its very disingenuous to pretend that all the evidence is pointing one way or another.  There aren't any statistics backing this up, all we have are people discussing what they themselves have personally experienced.
> 
> I'd also like to add that I have a wide variety of interests that I'm heavily involved in (cars, games, fishing, religion/philosophy, football, music, etc.) - I have a great job and have a lot of free time   Unfortunately I've seen this same line in many of the hobbies I participate in.  Not to derail this conversation, while I have opinions on religion I'm perfectly tolerant on peaceful people's views, but go look at atheism and "atheism+".  A lot of other groups are all of a sudden having these same sorts of issues.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason why its done in court, its not some value that was arbitrarily plucked out of the air.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think if the roles were reversed, and you had men claiming that women were groping them at these events, that you'd have the entire community just nodding their heads in agreement that of course this happened just as they stated?  Again I'm not in the crowd that says this never happens.  I think it does, but I'm merely asking to what extent?
> 
> 
> 
> If there are no objective societal ills coming from sexism in games (even if we assume that all claims of sexism are actually instances of sexism), what makes this different from me not liking green beans?  Without objective harm this seems to come down to just a difference in tastes.  If this is just a difference in tastes get in line because I'm a mustang fan and I think camaros are ugly  and that's a really big issue that's facing our society that we need to be made aware of!




Are you serious that you don't understand the difference between sexism and not liking green beans? Your not liking green beans does not effect anyone but you. Being a sexist jerk effects the women you come in contact with it shapes your views on where we should be allowed and what we should be allowed to do.  

I think if men were being groped and were unhappy about it and spoke up most women would not demand proof and since many of us have faced behavior like this we would have some empathy. What I can't figure out is why you think this is a female only issue. No one and I repeat no one deserves to be bullied and harassed. It is not just women being harassed but POC and LGBTQ as well.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight

The real problem is not women joining the game; the problem is that the proportion of real nerds is decreasing.

As a game becomes mainstream, it attracts more people from the middle of the bell curve, and you must now deal with idiots, whereas before, be they boyz or galz, you only had to deal with smart, mostly respectful and studious people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> The real problem is not women joining the game; the problem is that the proportion of real nerds is decreasing.
> 
> As a game becomes mainstream, it attracts more people from the middle of the bell curve, and you must now deal with idiots, whereas before, be they boyz or galz, you only had to deal with smart, mostly respectful and studious people.




"Real nerds"?
"middle of the bell curve"
"must now deal with idiots"

Where do you get the impression that members of the hobby before some point "T" in time before today that nerds were statistically better citizens than everyone else?  When was this "Golden Age of Geekdom?

I mean, you do realize we're all humans, and as such, are just as vulnerable to all the same flaws as others.  "Nerd-dom" does not innoculate you from being a misnthrope.  A con-man.  A stalker.  A rapist.  A killer.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Libramarian said:


> There's an almost religious fervor in your posts that is creeping me out. "Listen...believe...have faith...submit..."
> 
> I find the exhortation to 'just believe' repellant, not just because the willful stupidity involved but because it infantilizes women to consider them incapable of lying or trolling for their own aggrandizement.
> 
> There is a third option to belief and denial: skepticism. One is skeptical when they're withholding belief but open to changing their mind as further evidence comes to light..




So take a look at the evidence then.  The number of women and times they've claimed harassment (even just is cosplay alone) versus the number of times it has been determined a man was falsely accused by a woman for harassment.  What's the bigger number?

If you're so much into "skepticism"... it seems to me that you really should be looking skeptically at the MEN who claim they've been falsely accused.  Because the number of times that's been proven as actually true in comparison to the number of women proven right to having been harassed is miniscule.

I think it says a lot that you need hard evidence before you're willing to give all these women the benefit of the doubt, but have no problem giving it to the guys.


----------



## Taneras

Obryn said:


> "All of a sudden having" or "finally speaking up about"?




I honestly don't know.  I'd most certainly lean towards the latter if the trend in the past few years wasn't what it currently is.  Feminist blogs about how men simply smiling at women is sexism, college students claiming they need therapy because someone wrote, in chalk, "Trump 2016" on some of their universities sidewalks.  The screeching girl yelling at one of the Deans at Yale saying, in so many words, that Yale wasn't about creating an intellectual space for students, it's purpose should be to make them feel safe (this all came about because of Halloween Costumes and people dressing up as if they were members of a different ethnic group - which made many students at Yale feel unsafe).  What I see, honestly, is a big jump in hypersensitivity.  The issue I spoke about with atheism+?  A woman in an elevator at an atheist convention was asked if she'd like to have coffee in a guys room, and from that calls for anti-sexual harassment policies and an entire split in the atheist community that's still present.

Again, don't take this as me discounting all claims, or even most.  I'm just skeptical about the frequency.



Obryn said:


> If you want statistics, you can look up the statistics posted upthread about the percentage of women convention-goers who have experienced harassment or assault.




For some reason this website is super slow loading, and I'm seeing over 20 pages.  Do you know about where (first few pages, middle, or a few pages ago) it was discussed?



Obryn said:


> Probably. But that's not what's happening, you'll note. Heck; you've noted it _across other interests_.




Probably?  If you'd like we can go into statistics about how, generally speaking, men claiming to have been sexually assaulted by women is neglected by the authorities and glossed over by the public at large.  Perhaps table top gaming communities are an outlier, but I really doubt it.

And I'm not trying to turn this into a conversation about male sexual assault victims, as this is about sexism, racism, etc. within the table top gaming community.  I brought that up to show that on issues like these many people are generally skeptical regardless.



Obryn said:


> Did you actually just compare sexism with disliking green beans?




Yes, but not in the way you're understanding.  Please re-read what I've said.  Sexism in games.  Unless sexism in games influences sexism in real life, and unless we're going to argue that the characters in said games are actually real, have rights, and are suffering because they're exposed to sexism then it's simply a matter of taste.  If there is no harm being caused besides people's sensibilities being offended, which can happen with any activity mind you, then what's the issue?

If sexism in games doesn't cause sexism in real life, and those characters experiencing sexism in those games aren't actually real people, then there's nothing wrong with it.  You might as well be pointing to a violent movie where people are being killed as wrong because murder is wrong.  Well unless that movie, and movies like it, actually affect the population, and unless the movie is fake and those people really aren't being killed, we're back to simply a matter of taste.


----------



## Springheel

> Sexism is very much a part of geek hobbies.




I would argue that sexism (and racism, and homophobia, and physical threats and general out-and-out assholish behaviour) is very much a part of ANY hobby with a strong online presence.

You don't have to understand much psychology to know why internet chatter can often be much more aggressive and unpleasant than face to face communication.


----------



## Taneras

Elf Witch said:


> Are you serious that you don't understand the difference between sexism and not liking green beans? Your not liking green beans does not effect anyone but you. Being a sexist jerk effects the women you come in contact with it shapes your views on where we should be allowed and what we should be allowed to do.




Sexism in real life does that, sexism within a game doesn't affect anyone because pixels aren't people.  Unless it can be shown that sexism within video games influences people to be more sexist outside of video games (in real life) then yes its simply a matter of taste.  You might as well be a religious person arguing that portraying demons in a positive light in video games isn't acceptable.  Some people don't want a violent game.  Some people don't want a game that has sexism.  Some people don't want a game with spirits or demons as main characters.  Some people don't mind some of those elements.  At that point its down to preference.

Now, if games did influence people's behaviors then all bets would be off and there would be an objective, detectable, harm befalling society and you'd be right, we'd need to address this issue past the current "well that's just not my taste" situation.



Elf Witch said:


> I think if men were being groped and were unhappy about it and spoke up most women would not demand proof and since many of us have faced behavior like this we would have some empathy. What I can't figure out is why you think this is a female only issue. No one and I repeat no one deserves to be bullied and harassed. It is not just women being harassed but POC and LGBTQ as well.




There are plenty of guys who believe and there are plenty of women asking questions as well.  Please don't try and turn this into a gender war.

To be fair I've only just now entered the conversation and the quotes I've dealt with so far have only been related to complaints women have had.  I never said that this is just about women, I understand that there are other complaints by other people as well.


----------



## Taneras

DEFCON 1 said:


> So take a look at the evidence then.  The number of women and times they've claimed harassment (even just is cosplay alone) versus the number of times it has been determined a man was falsely accused by a woman for harassment.  What's the bigger number?




I have to ask why the difference in standards...  Women simply need to claim, but men need to actually, somehow, prove that they didn't do it?



DEFCON 1 said:


> I think it says a lot that you need hard evidence before you're willing to give all these women the benefit of the doubt, but have no problem giving it to the guys.




Libramarian just said that "here is a third option to belief and denial: skepticism. One is skeptical when they're withholding belief but open to changing their mind as further evidence comes to light.".  Nothing about that statement says lets automatically believe the guys, or even lets automatically believe the bully's story.  They're suggesting that we withhold belief entirely.  And that doesn't mean don't take action.  Lets say its a sexual/racial/whatever harassment claim about a DM at a specific table, it could be suggested that the person making the complaint try and switch groups, or, if the other party members agree with them about the harassment, the party find a different DM.  After, remind all the groups in your shop/event that this sort of behavior isn't suppose to be happening.   Then keep an eye on that DM and see if any other persons or groups have that issue.  To me, based off of someones word alone, you shouldn't ban the DM or ignore the person making the complaint.

On the contrary though DEFCON 1, that's exactly what you're doing, just swap the genders around.  Please reread what you've typed, surely you can see the difference in standards you've placed on the genders.  No, you didn't make this about victims and bullies, you made this about men and women and set different bars for each.  Ironically your post is guilty of what you've accused Libramarian of.


----------



## Springheel

The statistics quoted in the OP are apparently from here:



> 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.  https://www.scribd.com/doc/242846454/Sexual-Harassment-Survey-Responses




Being self-reported, with more women responding than men, I was surprised by the results:



> 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.




While that clearly indicates a problem, I'd be curious how it compares to other venues where thousands of strangers are crammed into a small space for a limited time, especially when more than a third of women report "unwanted touching" occurring at their workplace.


----------



## AngryTiger

Umbran said:


> Nobody should get non-consensually groped in a gaming store either.  Clearly, what *should* happen isn't what's happening.  What "should" happen clearly didn't work for the author, why do you it expect to work for you?
> 
> In a perfect world, one of infinite time, attention, resources, and goodwill, nobody would have to.  In *this* world, we must prioritize.  Walk into an emergency room on a busy Saturday night with a skinned knee among the gunshot wounds and drug overdoses, and you'll see what I mean.  It isn't that your issue isn't an issue, but you may have to wait for it to be addressed.  It isn't that they are "bigger victims" - that sounds like an emotionally loaded phrase.  It is simply that the injury they suffer is greater than yours.
> 
> And, in this case, unlike in the emergency room, properly addressing the larger root issue *will also address your issue*.  Work to reduce the sexism in gaming, and you'll reduce the incidence of such articles.  Help others, and you help yourself!
> 
> So, I will repeat - by all means continue focusing on the harm done to you, if you feel it is the real priority here.




Guess we have to stop discussing about this topic then. If you were not aware, women in third world countries face much worse then people in first world countries. Hundreds of thousands of women raped every year, thousands murdered as part of "honor killings", most young girls forced into arranged marriages. Much worse than people in first world countries can even imagine. 

We must prioritize, and all this discussion about harassment in gaming conventions is doing is distracting from the bigger problem. 

But by all means continue to focus on the harm done to priviliged people in first world countries if you feel that is the real priority here.

/Sarcasm

See, the problem with your Fallacy of relative privation(AKA The children are starving in Africa! argument) is that there is always a bigger problem. So we can never discuss about anything, since according to you, the world can only talk about one problem at a time.


----------



## Ancalagon

Hussar said:


> As was asked, what agenda is that?




I'm still waiting for him to explain what a "masculine gaming content" is...


----------



## DEFCON 1

Taneras said:


> I have to ask why the difference in standards...  Women simply need to claim, but men need to actually, somehow, prove that they didn't do it?




Different standards because I've seen ample evidence for women, people of color, homosexual, and trans people getting shafted by straight, white, males.  So my burden of proof has already been reached.  All these people DO get crapped upon, and one only needs to actually keep their eyes and ears open to see what is going on.  The stuff in North Carolina right now?  Only the latest example of a minority group getting crapped on again. 



> On the contrary though DEFCON 1, that's exactly what you're doing, just swap the genders around.  Please reread what you've typed, surely you can see the difference in standards you've placed on the genders.  No, you didn't make this about victims and bullies, you made this about men and women and set different bars for each.  Ironically your post is guilty of what you've accused Libramarian of.




As above... I've already seen and heard plenty to know that all these groups aren't just "making stuff up" where I need to remain "skeptical".  I don't need to be "skeptical" anymore.  It's been proven to me time and time again to my satisfaction.  If YOU still don't believe it... hey, knock yourself out.  But there are people out there who are still "skeptical" that the world is round and that we've landed on the moon, so while skepticism has its place... at some point you need to accept the preponderance of evidence.  And if you're not going to, then I'm going to look upon you like you're a fool not worth listening to.

And on top of that... what exactly is it about straight white guys that you want to defend them so much?  What's so great about them?  Hell, I'm ONE of them, and I can tell you that I think a good percentage of us SUCK.  Especially when we deal with women, children, people of color, homosexuals, transgender etc. etc.  I've yet to see what so great about us that I need to start in a place of "Well, you gotta prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what you're saying about the straight white guys before I'm willing to accept they've done anything wrong."  I've READ U.S. HISTORY.  I KNOW the kind of crap we've done.  It's been fairly obvious to me the kind of crap we've pulled for centuries.  So no... I'm willing to give every other group the benefit of the doubt BEFORE I give it to the straight white guy.  Because it's been shown pretty conclusively over the history of this country that where there's smoke... there's a fricking inferno.


----------



## Springheel

> what exactly is it about straight white guys that you want to defend them so much?  What's so great about them?
> ...
> ​I've READ U.S. HISTORY. I KNOW the kind of crap we've done. It's been fairly obvious to me the kind of crap we've pulled for centuries.




Wow.

 I guess judging people by the content of their character rather than by things they can't control, like race, gender, and sexual orientation, is just too old fashioned.


----------



## Elf Witch

Taneras said:


> Sexism in real life does that, sexism within a game doesn't affect anyone because pixels aren't people.  Unless it can be shown that sexism within video games influences people to be more sexist outside of video games (in real life) then yes its simply a matter of taste.  You might as well be a religious person arguing that portraying demons in a positive light in video games isn't acceptable.  Some people don't want a violent game.  Some people don't want a game that has sexism.  Some people don't want a game with spirits or demons as main characters.  Some people don't mind some of those elements.  At that point its down to preference.
> 
> Now, if games did influence people's behaviors then all bets would be off and there would be an objective, detectable, harm befalling society and you'd be right, we'd need to address this issue past the current "well that's just not my taste" situation.
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of guys who believe and there are plenty of women asking questions as well.  Please don't try and turn this into a gender war.
> 
> To be fair I've only just now entered the conversation and the quotes I've dealt with so far have only been related to complaints women have had.  I never said that this is just about women, I understand that there are other complaints by other people as well.




I can't speak for video games as I don't play them but I can speak for table top RPGS and yes the sexism in the early versions lead to sexism directed at female players. The whole strength caps  and beauty scores that lead to seduction spells based on those scores lead to some pretty horrible game play sessions. And while those beauty scores may not have been in TSR game products they were published in Dragon magazine.

It gave official permission to DM to treat female players  different that male players. I have already talked about the rape of my PC and the DM who made charts to track female PCs menstruation cycles. But there were other rules as well like no female PC can be a paladin, fighter or cleric unless that cleric is to a goddess of love, sex, or family. This DM didn't allow them to be wizards but they could play a special class he made called a witch. Oh and you had to play your own gender. 

I was at a con and we were picking out pre generated PCs and this one girl was told no she couldn't play the character she picked because she herself was rather homely so she wouldn't be able to play such a high charisma/beauty score. But a skinny bespectacled guy could play a burly fighter with no problems. 

There are other examples as well. Now I have been playing since the 1970s and I have seen that kind of sexism slowly die and a lot of that seem to happen as the game itself changed in the attitude of  treatment of female PCs. 

The blog that started this mentions mistreatment of POC. 

I saw that you earlier mentioned the incidence in the elevator at the atheist convention. I notice you chose to ignore what this woman said was the problem it was not a guy simply and politely asking her to join him for coffee. He was rather aggressive about it and didn't take it well that she said no thank you. She felt threatened and was not sure if it was going to lead to violence. I was not in that elevator and neither were you. But this is why anti harassment polices need to be in place. 

I also noticed you bring up examples of lone women doing what you see as strident and making unfounded claims. Yes some do crazy crap like that. But I notice you tend to ignore the behavior of men who for example who make outrageous claims that the new Star Wars film sole purpose is to be a tool for feminist and SJWs and to destroy what it means to be a white man. 

You don't believe that sexist things leads to sexist behavior well what about Elliot Rogers the mass shooter who wanted to kill as many pretty girls as he could because they refused to have sex with him and all the pick up sites he belonged to had told him he deserved any woman he wanted.  He was lauded as a hero in many of these sites after the shooting.

I am not turning it into as gender war you asked what would be the case if it was a man who was groped and I said that I believed most woman would chose to believe him. And I believe that most men would believe a woman. I am seeing a lot of support from male posters here and on some other places.

What I do find disturbing are posters like you and others who find it necessary to try deny this is an issue that needs addressing.


----------



## Libramarian

Ancalagon said:


> I'm still waiting for him to explain what a "masculine gaming content" is...




Content that glorifies masculinity and/or tends to appeal to men more than women and the genderqueer, esp. content that the latter find unappealing or even repulsive.

In a tabletop gaming context an obvious example would be pinup art, e.g. chainmail bikinis. More subtly, a game that assumes the PCs will engage in bloody combat primarily for conquest rather than to defend their communities or express their social bonds, as D&D used to.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Ancalagon said:


> I'm still waiting for him to explain what a "masculine gaming content" is...




"It is an excellent opportunity for friends to gather when you play Hunk Rump: The Gathering."


----------



## Ancalagon

Libramarian said:


> Content that glorifies masculinity and/or tends to appeal to men more than women and the genderqueer, esp. content that the latter find unappealing or even repulsive.
> 
> In a tabletop gaming context an obvious example would be pinup art, e.g. chainmail bikinis. More subtly, a game that assumes the PCs will engage in bloody combat primarily for conquest rather than to defend their communities or express their social bonds, as D&D used to.




So you want your gaming space to be a "male space"?  I'm not sure if that is your intent, but that could be the effect...


----------



## Cergorach

I foolishly clicked the link and read the article, first thing that goes through my mind: "Not this crap again! Why did I click this?". The I read "I am thirteen years old..." and I start getting angry, after reading the whole damn article I'm asking myself "In what kind of god damned hell is she living/gaming in!?!?".

I know people are horrible, both men and women are equal opportunity offenders in that regard. But this experience is extreme!

That comment from a grown man to a 13 year old girl would have made me take that old metal 40k dreadnought, put it in a sock and start beating that grown man! And if any of those kids were significantly older then 13, they would have been next... Kids can and will be extremely cruel to each other, that's not the worst thing I've heard a 13 year old say to another.

Geeks and Nerds tend to be... not socially apt, especially not around the opposite sex. Staring, awkward and inappropriate comments are to be expected, especially in the 9-21 year age bracket. Sure you can say "They should be better!", but if the were, they wouldn't be the social awkward geeks/nerds in the first place. But behavior that goes beyond gawking at women to touching without consent, sexual assault and rape are... Inexcusable! That's not a geek/nerd/gaming problem that's a generic problem in society, that happens in all social and hobby groups. Even though we all would like to think it doesn't happen in gaming, it just would surprise me if it didn't happen in gaming, but just in clubbing, frats, sports, etc.

Not learning self defense is foolish imho, not because she's a woman, but because she's a person. I'm a guy, I advise all kids to start judo/karate early in life and make your teacher teach you practical stuff that you can use on the 'street' if your in trouble. Because while girls/women might have to deal with sexual assault/rape, the non-alpha males often get the crap beaten out of them "Just because..."'. And while that might not be as bad as sexual assault/rape, it is more socially acceptable and often ignored, so it happens quite often in that young age bracket. Being a victim might not be your fault, but making sure your not a victim makes your life a whole lot more pleasant then being right and pointing out how wrong someone else is...

You can never really know whether your gaming with Hannibal or Theresa, no one ever really does when interacting with other people. But you can use common sense, gut feeling, etc. People who've known me for years or even all my life are still surprised at how aggressive and viscous I can be when I or others are threatened in my presence. Not that that has happened often since leaving school behind me, looking like someone one does not want to mess with helps though ;-) Talking about defense mechanisms...

The only 'sexual assault' I've ever personally encountered is when I was 9-10, boys doing things to girls. I interfered, got my ass kicked, stood up interfered, got my... Rinse and repeat until they got tired of me. The kicker in that case was that I got looks from the girls involved that convened "What the hell are you doing interfering!". Not that something like that would stop me in the future, I've just made sure that I can do the ass kicking...

The Internet... Well... That's a whole different piece of cake. The worst thing I've ever done over the Internet is to a girl, a Shadowrun site called Shadowland BBS back in the day. We were young, everything was still drama, every 'problem' we had was live changing, etc. One of the regular chatters was a girl whose handle I've forgotten, but after a while it became clear that she wanted to be the center of attention, a dramaqueen, hinting at to0 much and chat sometimes became... Unhealthy for all involved. Some of us warned her that this wasn't healthy and this could attract the wrong kind of attention, she was adamant that no one knew her real name or where she lived. What she forgot that over all that chat over many months we all had revealed some personal details, enough for me to find out where she lived (on campus), I emailed her roommate that she should get a 'grip' and send an aerial photograph with their dorm circled. That freaked her out pretty much and luckily made her more careful in later conversations. This is something like 20 years ago, so nothing like social media is now, folks weren't so open on the Internet like they are now. There's a reason, why I'm not on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn... ;-) While at the time I was focused on proving how easy it was to find out who someone is and where they live, not realizing how much that could scare someone.

That said, on the Internet folks can be everything they can't be in real live, threats don't surprise me. By now everyone has had them to a lesser or greater extent. If they are systemic and the police won't act, hire a private investigator, in this day and age tracking those folks isn't hard. Because most of them are indeed mindless dicks that don't know how to make themselves untraceable, even if they think they are, they are often not. It's not the first time that arrogant pricks that are supposed to know something about computers forget the social aspect of the Internet and forget how much personal information they leave lying around. Personally I've had very little interaction with the police, especially none with regards to threats, sexual assault or rape. So I can't say anything about how the police act, is this specific to this particular Canadian city? Canada? North America? This doesn't sound familiar to someone living in Western Europe...

The only part of this whole article I have a problem with is that it's talking about white male gamers as if we all do this... We don't, the folks I've played with over the last 28 years don't. And if someone is found out to do something like THAT, he's corrected with a heavy hand, if not kicked out. If I found out something like that happened to a Con I attended, they might have a murder on their hands instead of a rape... I hope I'm not the only one...

That said, I think that sexual assault and rape are in different galaxies from the male nerds/geeks staring at a girl/woman in the game store, being awkward, not knowing what to say around them, often being smitten. I was one of those awkward nerds, but again touching without permission would never ever happen, nor sexual threats! I don't know whether to blame the hormones during puberty or society (bullying)? Till age 8, most of my friends were female... It took until age 21 until I changed a bit from a total social inept introvert to someone that's skilled at communicating with people, I'm still a weird nerd though ;-) Weird thing happened, I was sat down by my manager at my first fulltime job after six months and what he said made such an impression that something clicked and I did a 180 regarding how I communicate with people. The problem is that many geeks/nerds never have that sitdown moment and something goes click, they always stay those socially inept introverts. That is not something you can change by wanting it to happen, not by force (of arms or will)...

On the other hand I think it's not bad advise from the police to treat certain social groups with care and maybe not associate with them. There's a reason why mom never wanted you to hang out with the Hell's Angels, not go to fratboy parties, etc. I personally think that if a female joined our RPG group when I was age 11-21 I think we would all have had a bad time. Not because I hated girls, but because being awkward around them doesn't mean fun for anyone involved... I just didn't know how to handle them. I did game with women though, but often at the gaming club (often board/cardgames), these were older women. I was the youngest person around by 10-20 years, I could handle older people a lot better then kids my own age (of any gender).

As for racism, I don't see that often from people my own age, often from older folks. But can't remember anyone in gaming being racist. Growing up in a multi cultural society as a kid kind of... Makes you immune to the  about race... I think... I hope... Might be a NA thing? That said, I don't know many black people that game, a 20 year old gaming buddy is half Turkish and and my best friend at school was from Hong Kong, but most gamers are white. Not strange when 80%+ of our population is white, not all that strange that 1 in 5 of us is not white. Also not that strange that we don't see that many black gamers when only ~3% of the population is black... Stats in NA might be different...

I also don't buy in game stores anymore, for around 15 years now (started with D&D 3E).
#1 Price
#2 Time
#3 Selection
I generally play with friends, I'm not a big fan of pickup games. I'm also not a fan of Cons for the same reasons. Gaming clubs depend on the people, I kinda miss the old group in Amsterdam...

Overall, it's just sad and enraging that something like this happened anywhere.

imho a whole different animal then a Conan Brom painting with a half naked women, a cover of a chainmail bikini clad woman (Alias, Curse of the Azure Bonds), or a boob heavy miniatures line by producer xyz... Let me also be clear, if you think these issues are comparable or related, your NUTS!


----------



## billd91

AngryTiger said:


> Guess we have to stop discussing about this topic then. If you were not aware, women in third world countries face much worse then people in first world countries. Hundreds of thousands of women raped every year, thousands murdered as part of "honor killings", most young girls forced into arranged marriages. Much worse than people in first world countries can even imagine.
> 
> We must prioritize, and all this discussion about harassment in gaming conventions is doing is distracting from the bigger problem.
> 
> But by all means continue to focus on the harm done to priviliged people in first world countries if you feel that is the real priority here.
> 
> /Sarcasm
> 
> See, the problem with your Fallacy of relative privation(AKA The children are starving in Africa! argument) is that there is always a bigger problem. So we can never discuss about anything, since according to you, the world can only talk about one problem at a time.




Oh, look, I can bring up a fallacy too! Did Umbran make the argument we can only deal with one problem at a time? No, so making it on your part would be setting up a straw man. But in the two related problems of sexual harassment/assault and having male feelings hurt by women complaining about the former, one's certainly a higher priority than the other and deserves more serious discussion.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Real nerds"?
> "middle of the bell curve"
> "must now deal with idiots"
> 
> Where do you get the impression that members of the hobby before some point "T" in time before today that nerds were statistically better citizens than everyone else?  When was this "Golden Age of Geekdom?
> 
> I mean, you do realize we're all humans, and as such, are just as vulnerable to all the same flaws as others.  "Nerd-dom" does not innoculate you from being a misnthrope.  A con-man.  A stalker.  A rapist.  A killer.



Dude... a lot of people gaming now can barely add a fixed number to a d20 roll.  For some, the GM has to dumb it down to "rage only stats" using one weapon only, and always power attacking.  Forget going off power attack.  Forget even suggesting TWF -2 penalty.

Now, take those people 30 years back when they had to figure out THAC0... I think their brain would implode and they'd walk away to go play rev engine n' burnin tires with the other dumbasses from my home town.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I was introduced to AD&D in Aurora, CO in 1977- plenty of "mere mortals" played back then, too.


----------



## Hussar

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> Dude... a lot of people gaming now can barely add a fixed number to a d20 roll.  For some, the GM has to dumb it down to "rage only stats" using one weapon only, and always power attacking.  Forget going off power attack.  Forget even suggesting TWF -2 penalty.
> 
> Now, take those people 30 years back when they had to figure out THAC0... I think their brain would implode and they'd walk away to go play rev engine n' burnin tires with the other dumbasses from my home town.




ROTFLMAO.  If you honestly think that 5e is _simpler_ than AD&D... well, I'm pretty much flabbergasted.  Yeah, good luck with that one.  Never minding games like 4e or 3e.  it's called Mathfinder for a reason.

------

On the whole "sexism in the game has no objective problem" thing.

That's, quite frankly, ballocks.  For one, sexism in gaming, even fairly low level stuff like chain mail bikinis, actively drives women away from the game.  That, right there, means that there are less people available to play D&D, and limits the size of the hobby.  So, right off the bat, you have objective consequences to "in game" sexism.  Good grief, it took Vampire and LARPing to bring any significant numbers of women into the hobby.  It sure as hell wasn't D&D.  

So, the idea that "Well, it's just all fantasy, so, it doesn't matter" is ridiculous.  It all matters.  It's all connected.  When every major NPC is a white dude, every depiction of women show them being victims held in the hand of an over sexualised red efreet, then, yuppers, you better believe it's an uphill battle to expand the player base.  When women are treated like faltering gazelles in front of lions every time they walk into a LGS (I refuse to add the F here, because it certainly ain't friendly) then of course it's limiting the player base.  And when complaints by women in the game are marginalised by white dudes claiming that it's just "boys will be boys" or "citation please", it certainly isn't helping one iota.


----------



## Hussar

Celebrim said:


> You are rather leaping to conclusions here in a desperate hope of trying to catch me in something.  I don't assert that I've ever been mistreated by strangers, deliberately denigrated, or picked on or the like.  The very fact that the groups were willing to welcome a stranger into their private activities and play space I would be a louse not to have some gratitude for.  In many cases the individuals were quite kind and gracious and as welcoming as they could be under the circumstances.
> 
> But I find standards of behavior, standards of content, standards of aesthetics of play, and standards of maturity just vary too widely from table to table.  If anything, it's unfair of me to have the expectation that some other table will necessarily cater to my tastes.  So one table might delve overtly into occult material I feel uncomfortable with.  Another table is content with traditional "beer and pretzels" play, where you kick the doors down, kill the orcs, take there stuff, and never get tired of doing it over and over - while often as not joking around and using the occasion as simply focus for socializing.  Another table might turn out to be filled with people who are painfully autistic even by my nerdy standards, so that I can't quite gel with them.  One table might be far more comfortable with casual profanities than I am.  Another might be entirely power-gamers that enjoy imposing their will on the game and blowing away every obstacle with ease.  One group had a DM who thought he was great at extemporeous play... and he just wasn't.  Another DM was so purist about metagaming, he refused to let the players see their own character sheets.  And so on and so forth.   In some cases, I don't actually have a problem with how that table chose to play, it just happened to not be my thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but unless the table is doing something utterly morally repugnant, who is to say the problem isn't mine?  Obviously they are enjoying themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> It's one thing to not expect another's experiences to be good.  It's quite another to expect some other gamer to be in fear for their own safety, or to be subject to harassment or abuse.




You misunderstand.  Has nothing with trying to "catch you" in anything.  Simply pointing to the fact that while you're arguing with [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] about behavior at tables, and how you find it surprising that women might be harassed at gaming tables, you also talk about how you don't play with strangers and how playing with strangers is very often a poor experience.  Of course it might be your problem too.  That's of course true.  

But, why the surprise when you talk about "painfully autistic" gamers?  

Heck, you're talking about how various groups can make you uncomfortable in various ways, so, why would it surprise you that women would be made to feel uncomfortable as well?


----------



## Libramarian

Obryn said:


> So let's zoom out a bit, okay?
> 
> Instead of getting all Zapruder Film on a single blog post, can we acknowledge that there's a rather constant stream of first-hand experiences of harassment, groping, sexual assault, etc. from women gamers?  Both in this thread and in others? Not everyone's experienced it, just like not everyone's harassed women.
> 
> Big picture here. Adding this to the rest of the evidence, are they just making it up?



I am listening. So far in this thread we have [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s experience of being groped by a Hugo-award winning writer in the late 1970s, and [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION]'s experience of rape by PC proxy in the early 1990s. Did I miss anything?

I went to Comic Con a few months ago with a friend of mine (granted, this is the only con I've ever been to). I didn't notice anything I would call harassment. I asked her yesterday in response to this thread if she experienced or witnessed any harassment then, just to be sure. She said no, it was a great time and she didn't have any problems at all.

Why be skeptical? For at least two reasons:

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.

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.



> That agenda would be ...?
> 
> I mean, "Let's be less sexist than we were in the 90's" sounds like a pretty fair goal?





Hussar said:


> As was asked, what agenda is that?



 The agenda of removing sexist content from the game...

One one  hand, I think it's pretty crass to co-opt existing IP to further any  kind of sociopolitical agenda. Their only agenda should be to make a  great game that entertains fans of the series. If you want new fans,  make new IP.

However it depends to what degree and by whose  definition the content is sexist. I haven't played Baldur's Gate for  many years but I don't recall anything striking me as sexist.

If  there were a quest in the game that involves the player abducting,  assaulting and destroying innocent women, or a companion who hates women  and harangues the PC on how they're evil and cannot be trusted, that  would be outrageous and I'd support its removal from the game in all  expansions and re-releases.

But a female character who _flirts with men_? That's sexist content? Not by any reasonable definition.


MechaPilot said:


> If a woman has been groped, the men and babies  re: breasts comparison makes a great deal of sense for her to make,  particularly while exasperated about the topic of sexual  harassment/assault.  The biological purpose of breasts is to feed babies  after all.



The context of the joke was her lobbying to reduce  the the breast size of female Wyrd miniatures. The biological purpose of  mammary glands is to feed babies. Breasts are a secondary sex  characteristic.



> As for your disbelief about the cop and the chant, I can't speak  to what Winnipeg is like, but real life can very much be just as  horrific as a horror film.  Recall that Texas Chainsaw Massacre (a 1970s  horror film) had elements inspired by real life murderer Ed Gein.   Also, you should be aware that cops are not paragons of humanity.  I'm  sure we can all find articles online about cops who abused their  authority by sexually assaulting women.  If some cops are willing to  sexually assault the women they pull over (and some very much are), then  it's not much of a stretch at all to consider that some cops might  react to a claim of rape as was described.



Of course they're  literally possible, but the less likely it is that they occurred, the  less we ought to be afraid of those scenarios occurring again.



> Ultimately, we know for a fact that the terrorism against her  occurred.  Whether Wyrd was complicit or not in the terrorism against  her is irrelevant to the existence of the problem of women being  harassed and/or assaulted by members of the gaming community, a problem  whose existence has been corroborated by multiple sources, including  members of this forum.



It's not irrelevant to the interests of  the forum! People should know that it's by no means proven that Wyrd was  complicit in her harassment. They make tabletop games and this is a  tabletop games discussion forum.

(Just to repeat, I'm not denying that she received threats and that that's terrible).


----------



## Libramarian

Ancalagon said:


> So you want your gaming space to be a "male space"?  I'm not sure if that is your intent, but that could be the effect...



My point upthread was that the moral obligation we have to fight against   the harassment of women dwarfs that of making games more appealing to   women, and one can support the first fight while actually having little interest  in the latter.

I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that  the vast  majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to  change that.  You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a  constitution.

I think game designers are prone to superiority complexes and delusions of grandeur, and feminist critics prey on this.

I support the creation of games for (and preferably by) women and the LGBTQI community. I'd be interested in playing them. I also support the creation of games that are unabashedly masculine in orientation and theme. I'm interested in playing those.

I don't generally like the idea of co-opting an established game and changing it to make it more appealing to women and LGBTQIs. Especially when disagreeing with these changes is automatically considered tantamount to bigotry. That would be Social Justice Warfare in the original Gamergate context, for those unclear on what that phrase means.


----------



## Elf Witch

Libramarian said:


> I am listening. So far in this thread we have [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s experience of being groped by a Hugo-award winning writer in the late 1970s, and [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION]'s experience of rape by PC proxy in the early 1990s. Did I miss anything?
> 
> I went to Comic Con a few months ago with a friend of mine (granted, this is the only con I've ever been to). I didn't notice anything I would call harassment. I asked her yesterday in response to this thread if she experienced or witnessed any harassment then, just to be sure. She said no, it was a great time and she didn't have any problems at all.
> 
> Why be skeptical? For at least two reasons:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> The agenda of removing sexist content from the game...
> 
> One one  hand, I think it's pretty crass to co-opt existing IP to further any  kind of sociopolitical agenda. Their only agenda should be to make a  great game that entertains fans of the series. If you want new fans,  make new IP.
> 
> However it depends to what degree and by whose  definition the content is sexist. I haven't played Baldur's Gate for  many years but I don't recall anything striking me as sexist.
> 
> If  there were a quest in the game that involves the player abducting,  assaulting and destroying innocent women, or a companion who hates women  and harangues the PC on how they're evil and cannot be trusted, that  would be outrageous and I'd support its removal from the game in all  expansions and re-releases.
> 
> But a female character who _flirts with men_? That's sexist content? Not by any reasonable definition.
> The context of the joke was her lobbying to reduce  the the breast size of female Wyrd miniatures. The biological purpose of  mammary glands is to feed babies. Breasts are a secondary sex  characteristic.
> 
> Of course they're  literally possible, but the less likely it is that they occurred, the  less we ought to be afraid of those scenarios occurring again.
> 
> It's not irrelevant to the interests of  the forum! People should know that it's by no means proven that Wyrd was  complicit in her harassment. They make tabletop games and this is a  tabletop games discussion forum.
> 
> (Just to repeat, I'm not denying that she received threats and that that's terrible).




Two years ago my friend 13 year old was groped at con so this is not something that only happened years ago.

I am very happy that your female friend did not experience any harassment at Comic con and enjoyed herself. That is what we all want.

But harassment is still happening at cons. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-sexual-harassment-at-comic-con-not-so-comic/


http://mashable.com/2014/10/15/new-york-comic-con-harassment/#pYMOkL9YsPqJ


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Libramarian said:


> I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that  the vast  majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to  change that.



You should try F.A.T.A.L.



> I think game designers are prone to superiority complexes and delusions of grandeur, and feminist critics prey on this.



Really?



> I support the creation of games for (and preferably by) women and the LGBTQI community. I'd be interested in playing them.




You should check out the Wraethu RPG.



> I don't generally like the idea of co-opting an established game and changing it to make it more appealing to women and LGBTQ




How _exactly _does one do that?


----------



## Libramarian

Emily Garland (author of the blog post in OP) admits to at least embellishing some of the stories in her article here:



> The question of whether Garland's account is believable has led to heated debate in reblogs of her post. Garland clarified that her intention in documenting these recollections was to evoke the experience of each incident.
> 
> "I wrote the flashbacks the way I did so that people who have not survived these events can know how they alter you permanently," she said. "I wrote the flashbacks as I [continue to] experience them — as PTSD flashbacks that interrupt your life and erode your sense of safety and normalcy. I refuse to apologize for my trauma not meeting some 's arbitrary credibility test. I was there. They weren't."
> 
> While Garland's depiction of the events she describes may sound over the top to some, Garland emphasizes that that's kind of the whole point.


----------



## MechaPilot

Libramarian said:


> I am listening. So far in this thread we have  [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]'s experience of being groped by a Hugo-award winning writer in the late 1970s, and [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION]'s experience of rape by PC proxy in the early 1990s. Did I miss anything?
> 
> I went to Comic Con a few months ago with a friend of mine (granted, this is the only con I've ever been to). I didn't notice anything I would call harassment. I asked her yesterday in response to this thread if she experienced or witnessed any harassment then, just to be sure. She said no, it was a great time and she didn't have any problems at all.
> 
> Why be skeptical? For at least two reasons:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.




Who is it you would say who has misled me?  I do hope you don't think it was the material linked to in the OP.  That inflammatory and overly general piece only caused me to stop and ask questions about how bad the issue is in those kind of public gatherings.  I have my own experience, plus the experience  [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] related, plus the experience Umbran related earlier that a friend had shared with him, and the word of a trusted and respected friend (who is something of a habitual people-watcher) who attends cons and says that harassment and assault is a problem that is significant.  In his own words, "particularly at gaming cons and anime cons."

There is also the OP of the We're All Gamers Together thread.  That OP links to the same material as the OP of this thread, but the OP of the We're All Gamers Together thread is not simply parroting the material linked to.  Instead, the OP of that thread claims to have collected stories of harassment and assault from female con-attendees on his own.

And now I have the articles that  [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] linked to as well.

It's not as if I think that all, or even most, gamers are bad.  The vast majority of the gamers who I've met and gamed with have been decent people.  Even most of the people who I have disagreed with (at times vehemently) on gaming forums have not been the type to spout vulgarities, or sexual threats, or to proudly post examples of partaking in player or character sexual assault or harassment.  But the truth is that even though I am not pretty and I don't cosplay (which should reduce my chances of being assaulted, though not necessarily of being harassed), I am a woman, raised with the rules that we were all raised with, and subject to the same wrong cultural judgments about somehow deserving what we got when we violate those rules.

Let's face a very simple reality, when people I know and respect tell me that I will probably have to pony up my dignity and my right to go unmolested if I attend a con, I would be taking a significant risk if I ignored their advice and went anyway.  And if I did go and was harassed or assaulted, there would inevitably be the judgement of, "well, you knew what you were walking into when you went."


----------



## Libramarian

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You should try F.A.T.A.L.
> 
> You should check out the Wraethu RPG.



Those both look terrible. I think you're trolling me!


> Really?



I was being a bit arch in saying that, but I think there's a kernel of truth there. When films receive feminist criticism sometimes the writer or director will say something to the effect of "K it's just a movie get a life" but I've never seen a game designer respond in that way. They tend to take it very seriously and show little awareness of how inconsequential their game is within the broader cultural conversation.



> How exactly does one do that?




Consider the new Baldur's Gate expansion discussed upthread. They changed the NPC companion Safana's personality from that of a woman who flirts with men to one who mocks and bullies them*. This can't be justified as the removal of sexist content from the series. I can see this as a move to make the series "more inclusive", but only if that phrase in this case essentially means "we thought women and non-heterosexual men would like this more"

*At this point I have to repeat that I haven't played this game myself. I'm relying on reviews. Like most people I thought the controversy was simply about the inclusion of a trans character in the game.

 [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] I said to the extent you've been misled, not sure if you have or not. I find your stance rather risk averse but not altogether unreasonable.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight

I'd like to add that a female character has no STR penalties.  You can make a STR 20 human female fighter at level 1.  That's proof the game itself isn't biased.  Anything outside of that is situational, conjecture and depends on the actual players at the table.

Moreover, some women do enjoy showing off their charms.  There's a whole beauty industry out there I heard...


----------



## Dire Bare

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> The real problem is not women joining the game; the problem is that the proportion of real nerds is decreasing.
> 
> As a game becomes mainstream, it attracts more people from the middle of the bell curve, and you must now deal with idiots, whereas before, be they boyz or galz, you only had to deal with smart, mostly respectful and studious people.




Good grief. There is no such thing as "real" versus "fake" nerds/geeks/gamers/etc. Nerdy stuff certainly has gained a wider appeal since my middle school days, and more folks have joined the hobby, but "real nerds"? Absolute BS.

And the idea that back in the day we were all homely, misunderstood geniuses who were good at math and now our hobby is awash with good-looking, but vapid, hipsters is ludicrous at best.

Back in the 80s, I gamed with some socially awkward, homely, misunderstood geniuses who were good at math. Today, as a middle-school teacher, I have students who are D&D fans who are socially awkward, homely, misunderstood geniuses who are good at math. Back in the 80s I gamed with some complete morons who had trouble with simple addition & subtraction, and some of my gamer-students also struggle with basic math. The demographics I have observed over my life, anecdotal as it is, haven't really changed much.

I do have some students today who are socially awkward, bright, good in school, and who feel marginalized by the larger population of kids. One of the appeals of D&D (Pathfinder in my school, actually) is to escape that marginalization and find a place they feel they belong . . . same as it was for me when I was a middle-school nerd. But when those bright kids start acting like they are superior to the other kids, start mocking and harassing those who "don't belong" in their "nerd club", I call them out on their harassing and discriminatory behavior . . . just like I DIDN'T, but should have, when I was a kid.

I automatically dismiss opinions laced with terms like "SJW", but I also automatically dismiss opinions laced with terms like "real nerds" or the mythical "fake geek girl". Sometimes I felt that way when I was in middle school, but then I grew up.


----------



## MechaPilot

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> I'd like to add that a female character has no STR penalties.  You can make a STR 20 human female fighter at level 1.  That's proof the game itself isn't biased.  Anything outside of that is situational, conjecture and depends on the actual players at the table.
> 
> Moreover, some women do enjoy showing off their charms.  There's a whole beauty industry out there I heard...




I would agree with you that the game itself isn't biased.  There are no stat or class or other such restrictions based on gender.

However, the beauty industry doesn't really exist because some women enjoy showing off their charms.  The western beauty industry could probably be traced back to (or before) the time when aristocrats of both genders men were wearing powdered wigs and makeup, and the beauty industry generally profits from making women feel like their natural looks are inferior, and that they need cosmetics to look acceptable.  This is reinforced by the various beauty images seen in film, marketing, fashion magazines, etc.

Also, I think most people want to look good.  I'm not exactly pretty, but I do like to buy clothes that flatter me or hide my faults instead of showing them off (which is not always easy for a big girl to find).  I think men also like to wear clothes that make them look good, or at least don't put their faults on parade.  I can't tell you how many men I've seen with well-defined arms who wear sleeveless or short-sleeved shirts.


----------



## Dire Bare

Cergorach said:


> Geeks and Nerds tend to be... not socially apt, especially not around the opposite sex. Staring, awkward and inappropriate comments are to be expected, especially in the 9-21 year age bracket. Sure you can say "They should be better!", but if the were, they wouldn't be the social awkward geeks/nerds in the first place. But behavior that goes beyond gawking at women to touching without consent, sexual assault and rape are... Inexcusable! That's not a geek/nerd/gaming problem that's a generic problem in society, that happens in all social and hobby groups. Even though we all would like to think it doesn't happen in gaming, it just would surprise me if it didn't happen in gaming, but just in clubbing, frats, sports, etc.




Like many here, I've been gaming for a long time. I'm in my mid-40s now and I started in elementary school. And, I've encountered my fair share of socially awkward folks who were young, and socially awkward folks who were older. At many times in my life, I've been the socially awkward one.

That does not excuse bad behavior.

I'm a middle school teacher, and I see a LOT of bad behavior in my students. They say and do a lot of horrible things to each other, and they don't react with much resilience (or "grit" as is more buzzworthy today) when subjected to it themselves. A large part of why they do this is because they are teenagers awash in hormones, and subject to poor examples from mass media, poor parenting, and peer pressure. I understand why some of them do the horrible things they do.

But that doesn't excuse their bad behavior.

In my school, and I'm sure every other public, private, and charter school across the nation, the adult staff works hard at modeling good behavior, calling out bad behavior when it happens, and enacting consequences for bad behavior . . . all in an effort to teach our young charges that being kind, courteous, respectful, and to not harass or discriminate against anyone "different" is the right choice. It's an uphill battle sometimes. But what is the alternative?

I act they same way with adults, in my gaming circles and elsewhere in my adult life. Because sadly, many of those teenagers who got into the habits of bad behavior carry that with them in adulthood, despite the best efforts of their teachers, coaches, and (hopefully) parents. I don't excuse bad behavior, regardless of the background of the actor, I try and model good behavior myself, I try to call out bad behavior when I see it (even if it means making others uncomfortable by not staying quiet), and when I am in a position of authority I enact consequences for bad behavior.

Bad behavior is very human and goes back to the dawn of time and we will never truly be free of it. And many folks who exhibit bad behavior themselves were victims of it earlier in life, or grew up thinking it was acceptable. But it is never acceptable, and we must never give up the struggle to correct it. And while we'll never truly eliminate it, we can reduce it's prominence and influence in our society.


----------



## Cergorach

Dire Bare said:


> But that doesn't excuse their bad behavior.




I'm not saying bad behavior should be excused, not at all! But social awkward is often seen as bad behavior, and often taken as offensive. The staring is often more like a deer staring into the truck headlights that is about to run it over, on the other hand, I'm sure that some are certainly leering. The inappropriate comments are often of the caliber "That sounded way better in my head! I should shut up now! Can I make myself any smaller or invisible...".

I can totally see why many girls/boys react negatively to the awkward nerd/geek, very few boys or girls are 'wise' in that regard at that age, or any age for that matter...

But the article isn't about 'bad' behavior, it's about explicit criminal behavior: sexual assault/rape/dead threats. Those things go way, way beyond bad behavior.

The Aboriginal woman that went to buy a miniature is just a sad situation. Things to never say to a customer, the sad thing is that those kinda folks work all over the world, such positions are often filled by the cheapest labor available. And let's be honest, who wants to work at a game store but a gamer, for all those math nerds, there's just as many morons in the gaming 'cult'...


----------



## Umbran

Libramarian said:


> 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.





What you *should* know is that insulting people isn't allowed, that making the discussion personal on these boards is a Bad Idea. 

If you do know it, you chose not to use that knowledge here.

Please don't post in the thread again.  You should also probably avoid the other thread, and this topic in general, as well.

Everyone - Morrus and I were away for a couple of days, so I have some catch-up to do on these threads.  But, do take it as a given that these threads call for you to remain polite.  Those are the rules of this place.  Abide by them, please.


----------



## Dire Bare

Cergorach said:


> I'm not saying bad behavior should be excused, not at all! But social awkward is often seen as bad behavior, and often taken as offensive. The staring is often more like a deer staring into the truck headlights that is about to run it over, on the other hand, I'm sure that some are certainly leering. The inappropriate comments are often of the caliber "That sounded way better in my head! I should shut up now! Can I make myself any smaller or invisible...".
> 
> I can totally see why many girls/boys react negatively to the awkward nerd/geek, very few boys or girls are 'wise' in that regard at that age, or any age for that matter...
> 
> But the article isn't about 'bad' behavior, it's about explicit criminal behavior: sexual assault/rape/dead threats. Those things go way, way beyond bad behavior.
> 
> The Aboriginal woman that went to buy a miniature is just a sad situation. Things to never say to a customer, the sad thing is that those kinda folks work all over the world, such positions are often filled by the cheapest labor available. And let's be honest, who wants to work at a game store but a gamer, for all those math nerds, there's just as many morons in the gaming 'cult'...




While I think we disagree somewhat, I think we probably agree more than we disagree. I wasn't so much posting a rebuttal to your comment, but using it to take my own thoughts forward.

"Awkward" behavior is not the same thing as "bad" behavior, certainly, although sometimes it can be interpreted in that way. Kids (or adults) shouldn't be called out on simply being awkward, although coaching to improve social skills might be warranted. But sometimes, awkward kids can certainly engage in bad behavior, from minor insults all the way up to harassing and intimidating behavior, and it often stems from them being socially awkward and feeling the pain of being constantly misunderstood.

Awkward behavior needs to be coached, so that the awkward person learns how to interact with folks more positively and stands less chance of being misunderstood as creepy. Bad behavior (regardless of the degree), needs to be called out, stopped, and appropriate consequences applied . . . even if it stems from a person's position as being socially awkward. Now, I'm not saying consequences always need to be punitive . . . consequences for bad behavior can include coaching, counseling, mentoring, some sort of rehabilitation to try and reach the offender and get them to understand why their behavior is wrong. Just punishing them often reinforces their lone-wolf mentality and doesn't always curb the behavior.


----------



## Hussar

This is very strange.  I cannot see the last ten pages or so of this thread.


----------



## Dire Bare

Hussar said:


> This is very strange.  I cannot see the last ten pages or so of this thread.




I'm having the same problem in both "harassment" threads. And others have mentioned it as well. I don't think we're missing some of the conversation, it's just a weird bug. I think.


----------



## Libramarian

I can't view recent posts in this thread, is it just me?


----------



## Hussar

Ahh. I can see more in tapatalk. It appears some mod action is going on.


----------



## Morrus

Just a quick note, folks. There's a bug affecting this and some other longer threads right now making some pages inaccessible to some users. Working on it. This thread seems to be the worst affected. Then again, if you're affected, you can't see this...


----------



## Balesir

Yes, it's fully visible in Tapatalk but not in Firefox - very weird.


----------



## Fildrigar

And here I though the bug was from all the names I've added to my block list...


----------



## Xvartslayer

MechaPilot said:


> SNIP
> 
> However, the beauty industry doesn't really exist because some women enjoy showing off their charms.  The western beauty industry could probably be traced back to (or before) the time when aristocrats of both genders men were wearing powdered wigs and makeup, and the beauty industry generally profits from making women feel like their natural looks are inferior, and that they need cosmetics to look acceptable.  This is reinforced by the various beauty images seen in film, marketing, fashion magazines, etc.




This is not just true. I encourage you to research the subject. Heck, watch Downtown Abbey or the Devil Wear's Prada to get a sense of how what you are saying has no relation to reality.

You know that women are strongly represented in the beauty industry, right? Do you appreciate what you are saying about a woman who chooses a career in beauty or fashion?


----------



## Caliburn101

All 'image' based industries and associated advertising and media prey on the insecurities (much of it exaggerated or even generated BY the same industries) we have about our appearance.

_Humans_ judge on appearance, and form a judgement within the first few seconds based on that. That's basic human psychology - not just something limited to women.

Both sexes indulge at some point or other, some individuals more than others, in arranging their appearance to be sexually appealing. The idea that this isn't true is one entirely based on self-deception.

Look at the digitally enhanced six-pack on the inevitable shirtless and oiled body builder on the cover of a men's 'health' magazine or the perfect shape, hair and photo-shopped unblemished skin of a woman on the front of a fashion magazine and join the dots...

The industries in question want us to feel inadequate unless we use their products and/or socially inferior if we can't sport a particular clothes label, designer look or trending hairstyle.

Nobody should be fooled by the representatives of such companies who spend vast sums re-spinning this as something 'positive and affirming'.

As for what this says about people who choose a career in it - anyone working in the fashion or related industries who doesn't know what a morally hollow occupation they are in is fooling themselves.

How 'beautiful' or 'masculine' do you think the vast number of wage slaves in the sweatshops employed at the ugly end of the glamour business feel?

Of course such companies always complain that 'they didn't know' and it's all so well hidden - but every time an investigative reporter goes to find out what is really happening, they find immoral and illegal all over the place within mere days.

The idea that the trained CSR auditors of such industries 'missed it' every time they did an audit is a insult to anyone's intelligence.

The idea that at a board room level the people running these industries don't see their customers in very much the same way as the wage-slaves they exploit is equally naïve.

Which brings me back to the point.

Being a 'fashion victim' isn't some kind of 'women only' label. Men are just as susceptible and in some cases less aware of their own weakness in this regard.

Anyway - I have to admit this development on this thread is somewhat tangential, but just about still relevant I guess.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Wrong thread.


----------



## MechaPilot

Xvartslayer said:


> This is not just true. I encourage you to research the subject. Heck, watch Downtown Abbey or the Devil Wear's Prada to get a sense of how what you are saying has no relation to reality.
> 
> You know that women are strongly represented in the beauty industry, right? Do you appreciate what you are saying about a woman who chooses a career in beauty or fashion?




If I want to be further educated about a topic, I cannot say that I would choose non-educational programming as my go-to source.  Nova is a good place to learn the broad strokes of things (and they usually direct you to other more detailed sources at the end of the program).  Downtown Abbey?  Eh, not so much.  To be perfectly blunt, I probably would not choose a television source at all.

Now it's not like I'm saying that people in the beauty industry are some kind of monsters.  I'm sure some are, there's always some in every industry, but most are probably just average people.  However, when your product's purpose is to enhance the beauty of the user, the best and easiest way to create demand for that product is to play on the natural insecurity people have about their appearance.

And it's not just the cosmetics and fashion industries.  Look at gyms.  They engage in the same marketing game of playing on our insecurities to sell memberships to men and women.  They make men feel insecure about not having big muscles or not being completely ripped, and women feel bad about not being a size zero or not having a thigh gap you could drive a truck through.  There's a gym in my area that specifically sells butt-enhancing training routines to women: they have posters split down the middle showing one cottage cheese butt cheek on the left, and one tight firm butt cheek on the right, and slogans like "what would you rather see in the mirror" and "don't let your booty be a bummer."


----------



## Ancalagon

Libramarian said:


> My point upthread was that the moral obligation we have to fight against   the harassment of women dwarfs that of making games more appealing to   women, and one can support the first fight while actually having little interest  in the latter.
> 
> I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that  the vast  majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to  change that.  You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a  constitution.
> 
> I think game designers are prone to superiority complexes and delusions of grandeur, and feminist critics prey on this.
> 
> I support the creation of games for (and preferably by) women and the LGBTQI community. I'd be interested in playing them. I also support the creation of games that are unabashedly masculine in orientation and theme. I'm interested in playing those.
> 
> I don't generally like the idea of co-opting an established game and changing it to make it more appealing to women and LGBTQIs. Especially when disagreeing with these changes is automatically considered tantamount to bigotry. That would be Social Justice Warfare in the original Gamergate context, for those unclear on what that phrase means.




I don't believe that reducing some of the sexism in the game would make it less appealing to men.   Women like conquest and exploration and intrigue and combat too.


----------



## MechaPilot

Libramarian said:


> My point upthread was that the moral obligation we have to fight against the harassment of women dwarfs that of making games more appealing to women, and one can support the first fight while actually having little interest in the latter.
> 
> I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that  the vast  majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to  change that.  You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a  constitution.
> 
> I think game designers are prone to superiority complexes and delusions of grandeur, and feminist critics prey on this.
> 
> I support the creation of games for (and preferably by) women and the LGBTQI community. I'd be interested in playing them. I also support the creation of games that are unabashedly masculine in orientation and theme. I'm interested in playing those.
> 
> I don't generally like the idea of co-opting an established game and changing it to make it more appealing to women and LGBTQIs. Especially when disagreeing with these changes is automatically considered tantamount to bigotry. That would be Social Justice Warfare in the original Gamergate context, for those unclear on what that phrase means.




Forgive me, but because you mentioned changes to the game itself, I have to ask what changes we're talking about.

Are we talking about the mechanics of the game?  The last time that D&D changed a mechanic that specifically appealed to me as a woman and not just as a gamer with my own individual preferences was when they removed the Strength limitation on female characters.

Are we talking about the game explicitly mentioning that you can play transgendered or non-heterosexual characters?  While I openly support the game making these welcoming and inclusive statements, I have to say that no DM is in any way forced by those statements to allow transgendered or non-heterosexual characters at her table; in the same way that no DM is required to allow an elf character to have green hair or gold eyes, despite that being mentioned as possibilities in the description of the elf race.

Beyond those two things, I am having difficulty coming up with parts of the game itself that seem like they were altered or added to appeal to specific audiences.


----------



## Umbran

Libramarian said:


> I think there's nothing wrong with making a game, finding that  the vast  majority of your fans are men, and then not really caring to  change that.  You're making a fun little thing, not drafting a  constitution.




Okay, so, you don't need to make a game appeal to women (or members of the LGBTQ community).  How about other entertainments?  TV?  Movies?  At what point does the failure to represent and appeal to women become, in effect, a message that women are not a group we should care about, which is in turn a statement that women (or others) are *less*?

This, aside from how, as MechaPilot says, there's not been a whole lot of changes *to the game* that are necessary.  Some changes to the presentation (like putting clothes on women in game-art) have been useful, but to the actual *rules*?


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> This, aside from how, as MechaPilot says, there's not been a whole lot of changes *to the game* that are necessary.  Some changes to the presentation (like putting clothes on women in game-art) have been useful, but to the actual *rules*?




Putting even just a little more clothing on women in the art has, at least in my experience, made it easier to try to share my interest in the game with other women.

Back when I was playing AD&D 2e, I'd occasionally get into a conversation with another woman where I'd bring up having fun playing D&D with some friends, and then she'd be curious and ask me about it.  Back then, there was a significant amount of art that included scantily-clad women.  Frankly, it was kind of embarrassing to show the books to other women, and I always felt like I had to go the extra mile to justify why I liked the game.


----------



## Hussar

((Gack, step away from En World for a couple of days, wade through 60 pages in the other harassment thread only to find it locked at the end.  LOL))

I find it absolutely baffling to be honest to think that anyone would think that not making your product more appealing to more people is a good idea.  It's just good business.  Is anyone going to _stop_ buying D&D books because they have less chainmail bikinis it them?  Maybe.  But, I'm pretty willing to bet that the primary motivation for buying a PHB isn't to look at pinup art.  That might be a reason, but, hardly the main one.

Yet, removing the pinup art, while maybe making the book less attractive to some potential customers, but still attractive since it is a D&D rule book, and making the book more attractive to people who may be far less likely to buy a book with a chainmail bikini on the cover, is just good business.  Why wouldn't you do it?  

This has little to do with pushing any sort of agenda and far more about bottom line.  Companies want to make money.  They will make more money removing pinup art than they will lose.  That's the full argument in a nutshell.  There aren't any other considerations really, not from a corporate point of view.

it's no different than coffee shops going non-smoking.  Yup, you might lose the smokers.  But, as history has nicely shown, the increase in volume (non-smokers don't stay as long as smokers, thus freeing up tables) more than makes up for it.  So, virtually every coffee shop has gone non-smoking.  Sure, you can paint it as a social issue all you like, but, the biggest reason all the restaurants have gone along with it is because they make a bucket full more money going non-smoking.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Umbran said:


> This, aside from how, as MechaPilot says, there's not been a whole lot of changes *to the game* that are necessary.  Some changes to the presentation (like putting clothes on women in game-art) have been useful, but to the actual *rules*?




I think you may have previously banned this person from the thread?



Hussar said:


> This has little to do with pushing any sort of agenda and far more about bottom line. Companies want to make money. They will make more money removing pinup art than they will lose. That's the full argument in a nutshell. There aren't any other considerations really, not from a corporate point of view.




I think there's a bit more to it than that--most consumer-facing companies today are betting that their brands will benefit by adopting some of the trappings of progressivism, and wotc is certainly not an exception. Surely some companies see this as a localization issue, but I'd bet cold, hard cash that others--especially ones HQ'd in coastal US cities--are sincere to the point where they'd willingly deny themselves a _reasonable_ amount of profit to stick with their ideals. 

AFAIK, which camp WotC falls into is anybody's guess.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

There have always been businesses willing to sacrifice money in order to stay true to their ideals, and there always will be.  Make no mistake, though, they're not all "progressive" ideals.


----------



## Umbran

dd.stevenson said:


> I think you may have previously banned this person from the thread?




Good point.  He can't respond, and that's not fair.  My apologies.


----------



## MechaPilot

dd.stevenson said:


> I think you may have previously banned this person from the thread?




If that's accurate then I apologize as well.  I hadn't realized that poster had been banned from the thread.


----------



## Rygar

dd.stevenson said:


> I think you may have previously banned this person from the thread?
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's a bit more to it than that--most consumer-facing companies today are betting that their brands will benefit by adopting some of the trappings of progressivism, and wotc is certainly not an exception. Surely some companies see this as a localization issue, but I'd bet cold, hard cash that others--especially ones HQ'd in coastal US cities--are sincere to the point where they'd willingly deny themselves a _reasonable_ amount of profit to stick with their ideals.
> 
> AFAIK, which camp WotC falls into is anybody's guess.




There's really just mass confusion in the business world right now.  For the past 5-7 years since Facebook became huge "Common sense" was that social media is the thing to watch and if you master it you get enourmous profits,  it's the new "Commercial".  So businesses have assumed that whatever's trending on sites like Twitter and Facebook must be what "everyone" thinks.

The thing that's throwing them is,  many of these places are subject to the same weaknesses that allow forums to devolve.  People with specific agendas in positions of power are able to alter the composition and therefor the message of a given platform by selectively removing individuals to silence opposing viewpoints.  People with specific agendas can make a message seem more supported than it is by creating shill accounts.  People very experienced with community manipulation can not only make a message seem more supported than it is with shill accounts,  they can also use "Burners" to incite opposition to the point where they get banned by even neutral mods.

Those kinds of things have been going on for a while now,  moreso on some platforms than others,  but they are manipulated by very dedicated activists.  So businesses are jumping on this progressivism political movement and things are happening that defy common sense.  "Sunset" for example,  was a video game hailed by progressives as the model video games should aspire to,  and it sold just 4,000 copies in its first month and its studio disbanded.  Meanwhile Dead or Alive 3 Extreme,  the antithesis of progressivism,  broke import records when Japan said it wasn't going to localize it for the U.S. due to the political climate.

Then there's Protein World that ran an ad that fell afoul of activists for being sexist,  the activists held protests,  and conventional wisdom in the business world said "you apologize or suffer horrible consequences",  but Protein World did not.  They then had record breaking sales.

The business world is confused to no end,  If Social Media is representative of the population at large then none of these events should've happened.  But these things did happen,  and the business world has no idea what to do now.  So yes,  some of them are adopting trappings of progressivism with the hope that it makes them more money,  but just as many are finding that being anti-progressive is lucrative.  It'll still be a year or two before we can definitively state which approach is more lucrative though.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Rygar said:


> The business world is confused to no end,  If Social Media is representative of the population at large then none of these events should've happened.  But these things did happen,  and the business world has no idea what to do now.  So yes,  some of them are adopting trappings of progressivism with the hope that it makes them more money,  but just as many are finding that being anti-progressive is lucrative.  It'll still be a year or two before we can definitively state which approach is more lucrative though.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> There have always been businesses willing to sacrifice money in order to stay true to their ideals, and there always will be.  Make no mistake, though, they're not all "progressive" ideals.




Even though it's fascinating, I don't mean to have a wide-ranging discussion about marketing and branding during times of social change as I don't really think that stuff is super appropriate to EnWorld. The counterpoint I want to raise in response to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is that corporations are not _always_ 100% soulless profit-seeking machines, and a reasonable person is indeed free to suspect that certain brands (for example, D&D) are on occasion being leveraged for political activism rather than corporate profit.


----------



## Hussar

Meh. Given the options - supporting activism out of ideology or supporting activism in search for more profits, I'd say corporations are more likely to pursue the latter.


----------



## MechaPilot

dd.stevenson said:


> The counterpoint I want to raise in response to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is that corporations are not _always_ 100% soulless profit-seeking machines. . .




While that is true, it's always important to recall that all corporations ultimately have to answer to their shareholders, which is why the vast majority of corporate decisions that are not compliance-oriented in nature are profit-oriented.  Whenever a corporation chooses to do something that decreases profit (thereby not increasing retained earnings/stock value, or decreasing both the cash available for dividend distribution and E&P for classifying distributions as dividends for the preferential tax rate), they always run the risk of running afoul of the shareholders (most of whom probably hold the stock for either growth value or dividend income purposes).

In the case of a subsidiary, like WotC, you effectively have two layers of shareholders you have to appease: the management at the parent company (i.e. Hasbro), and then Hasbro's shareholders who indirectly own WotC.

I would also like to reiterate my earlier point about the degree of change in the game itself.  The only two changes in the game itself that I have seen that appear to target specific demographics are these: 

1) the lifting of the restriction on female PC Str scores, and
2) the mention of trangendered and non-heterosexual characters in the 5e rules.

I'm not altogether certain when the first change occurred (was it before WotC acquired the brand?): TV Tropes claims that it was part of 1st edition, during the TSR era, but I'm not about to quote TV Tropes as gospel.  If we assume for the sake of discussion that the first change occurred with the printing of the 2e basic set (in 1981), that's one demographic-oriented rules change and one demographic-oriented descriptive change over the course of two corporate owners and 35 years of publication.


----------



## dd.stevenson

MechaPilot said:


> I would also like to reiterate my earlier point about the degree of change in the game itself.  The only two changes in the game itself that I have seen that appear to target specific demographics are these:
> 
> 1) the lifting of the restriction on female PC Str scores, and
> 2) the mention of trangendered and non-heterosexual characters in the 5e rules.
> 
> I'm not altogether certain when the first change occurred (was it before WotC acquired the brand?): TV Tropes claims that it was part of 1st edition, during the TSR era, but I'm not about to quote TV Tropes as gospel.  If we assume for the sake of discussion that the first change occurred with the printing of the 2e basic set (in 1981), that's one demographic-oriented rules change and one demographic-oriented descriptive change over the course of two corporate owners and 35 years of publication.




If we're talking specifics, then I think there's a pretty tenable argument that, pre-change, these game rules had had the trappings of _reactionary_ advocacy, and that by updating them the companies were simply following their interests by widening the market for their products.

Either way, the point remains that "corporations don't do advocacy so your suspicions are unfounded" isn't a great argument.


----------



## Deset Gled

MechaPilot said:


> I would also like to reiterate my earlier point about the degree of change in the game itself.  The only two changes in the game itself that I have seen that appear to target specific demographics are these:
> ...
> If we assume for the sake of discussion that the first change occurred with the printing of the 2e basic set (in 1981), that's one demographic-oriented rules change and one demographic-oriented descriptive change over the course of two corporate owners and 35 years of publication.




I can think of a few other game mechanics that seem relevant to this point:

1.  The effect "Character’s gender changes" is listed as a random effect for a cursed item (2e and 3.x, possibly other editions as well).

2.  In 3.x, there were a small number of Prestige Classes that were available only to females.  There was one PrC that was only available to eunuchs.  There were no official PrCs that were exclusive to (intact) males.

3.  In 1e, there was the infamous table for random Harlot generation, including such possibilities as "wanton wench" and "aged madam".

Do you view any of these as sexist?  There's also third party stuff, like The Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I don't know if that's relevant.


----------



## MechaPilot

Deset Gled said:


> I can think of a few other game mechanics that seem relevant to this point:
> 
> 1.  The effect "Character’s gender changes" is listed as a random effect for a cursed item (2e and 3.x, possibly other editions as well).
> 
> 2.  In 3.x, there were a small number of Prestige Classes that were available only to females.  There was one PrC that was only available to eunuchs.  There were no official PrCs that were exclusive to (intact) males.
> 
> 3.  In 1e, there was the infamous table for random Harlot generation, including such possibilities as "wanton wench" and "aged madam".
> 
> Do you view any of these as sexist?  There's also third party stuff, like The Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I don't know if that's relevant.




I'd like to tackle the mechanics you mentioned in reverse order:

#3) I think that the exclusion of the random harlot table is not about sexism or making social change so much as it is about making the game more profitable by making it more accessible to a broader age range of potential customers.  Plus, a parent might be more likely to refuse to buy D&D books for a child if they see things in the glossary or index such as "random harlot table."

#2) I don't recall seeing any prestige classes that weren't available to both genders.  That said, I didn't have a massive collection of books for 3e, so there may have been some that existed in books that I never owned.

#1) While I can see your point, I also think that both 4e and 5e have largely cut back on cursed items in general.  I can't remember seeing a cursed item in 4e, and I have yet to run across one while DM'ing 5e.  I think this is more related to a move away from cursed items than it is omitting a change in genders from any list of potential curse effects.

Personally, I'm of two minds about point #1.  I don't think that being any specific gender is a curse in and of itself.  However, I think the gender-changing curse is somewhat ill-described in that it (to the best of my recollection) just says the character's gender changes.  Does that include both the character's sexual characteristics and gender identity?  Or, does that just include sexual characteristics?  I think that these questions weren't so fully considered when gender-changing was a potential curse effect.  That said, I know some transgender people who have suffered depression almost to the point of suicide.  If your sexual characteristics changed but your gender identity didn't, the pain and depression of that mismatch could very much be said to be a curse.

Regarding the BoEF, I actually own a copy and like it.  Although, I will freely confess that its strength is not in its crunch.  The beginning part about handling sex in an RPG, discussing allowed game content in terms of comparable film ratings, and discussing different concepts of marriage and divorce, as well as the section discussing magical charm and consent are definitely good.


----------



## delericho

MechaPilot said:


> The only two changes in the game itself that I have seen that appear to target specific demographics are these:
> 
> 1) the lifting of the restriction on female PC Str scores, and
> 2) the mention of trangendered and non-heterosexual characters in the 5e rules.
> 
> I'm not altogether certain when the first change occurred (was it before WotC acquired the brand?): TV Tropes claims that it was part of 1st edition, during the TSR era, but I'm not about to quote TV Tropes as gospel.  If we assume for the sake of discussion that the first change occurred with the printing of the 2e basic set (in 1981)




The gender-specific ability score maxima were _introduced_ in the 1st Edition PHB in 1978 (possibly in The Dragon before that) and were removed in the 2nd Edition PHB in 1989. I don't think they ever appeared in the _D&D_ (as opposed to AD&D) line.



> that's one demographic-oriented rules change and one demographic-oriented descriptive change over the course of two corporate owners and 35 years of publication.




Not quite - the 2nd Ed PHB also made exclusive use of the masculine pronouns, and had a sidebar early on explaining why they felt this was appropriate. With 3e they used both 'he' and 'she', largely tying those to the Iconics (that is, the iconic Wizard was female, so any time they referred to a Wizard they used 'she'; the iconic Fighters were male, so any time they referred to a Fighter they used 'he'). For 4e they dropped the iconics, but I think continued alternating 'he' and 'she'.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> While that is true, it's always important to recall that all corporations ultimately have to answer to their shareholders




Not true, in the sense that many (in fact, probably the majority in terms of numbers) companies are privately held, not publicly traded.  We are tempted to say that, well, the private owner is still a "shareholder", but the difference is likely not trivial.  For a publicly traded company, the shareholders are effectively nameless, faceless, distant, and generally interested only in the money.  In privately held companies, you are talking about a small number of individuals with personal approaches that aren't washed out by statistics and distance.

This is dreadfully important when the company in question is, for example, a game store.  I have nearly no ability to influence the policies of, say, my local Barnes & Noble, as it answers to the large swath of faceless shareholders that influence corporate policy.  But, I know by name the owners of the two FLGS, and I play live-action games with one on a regular basis.  These guys can be influenced by my reasoned arguments, where my local B&N cannot.


----------



## Rechan

Guys here have asked "What can we do about this?" This article, along with going over some of the rhetorical arguments presented in this thread, gives direct advice to male allies:


> ASK women about their experiences in gaming. A large chunk of the problem’s persistence is that a woman who gets offended/hit on/etc. and leaves doesn’t actually cause the majority of sensible male gamers to DO ANYTHING. “Oh, yeah, Stephanie…nobody’s seen her in two weeks? I guess she got a new job or something and didn’t tell us.” Smiling monsters rely on your not following up with their victims to get the space they need to operate.
> 
> LISTEN to what they say. Remember, they’re feeling isolated, and they feel like nobody will believe them over the other men at the table. Don’t accuse them of exaggerating. Don’t “put them in the witness box” — just listen. It won’t be comfortable. Time and time again, I’ve been told that the single most valuable thing I ever did was listen, so that she didn’t feel she was facing this alone. As a guy, it’s REALLY hard to believe that _just_ listening is that helpful, but it’s observably true.
> 
> WATCH for signs of discomfort. Women take up different body language when they feel threatened. They close their bodies off; they cross their arms in front of their chest as if they expect to get hit. They move to a chair on the other side of the table to get away from someone. They lean away from someone at a table to maximize the space between them or to preserve their personal space. These are all cues. If you see these signs, go back to “ASK” — you can ask “Are you OK?” If someone is getting close to a woman showing these body language cues, ask him “Hey, wait a minute. Do you know her?”
> 
> PAY ATTENTION to what other people are saying. We get it. Guys in the gaming hobby treat it like an old boy’s club, or chatter in the gym locker room. They can talk about whatever they feel like! They can crack rape jokes. They can crack blonde jokes. They can make comments like “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.” The uncomfortable woman probably won’t make a confrontation, because she’s unsure if she’s got any support in the room at all. That’s your job. Let her know that she’s NOT ALONE in thinking this is unacceptable behavior.
> 
> LOOK FOR ESCALATIONS. A lot of guys think that bawdy humor is “just part of gaming.” It absolutely can be with a group of people who know each other well. Unfortunately, at conventions and in game stores, bawdy humor is used by smiling monsters as a way to “gain permission” to do more. The pattern looks like this: Tell an edgy joke, see if anyone looks nervous before they laugh. Wait for people to calm down a bit, and tell a slightly more sexual joke. Repeat, and each repetition, escalate to more sexually explicit humor. Try touching a shoulder to “reassure.” Smiling monsters take laughing at raunchy jokes as evidence that they’re concealed by the social contract. They also get a thrill out of pushing the boundary of the social contract; it’s how they “win the game” in their head.
> 
> COMMUNICATE with someone who looks uncomfortable. Don’t let them wander off feeling like nobody cares. Ask simple things like “Are you OK?” and listen to what’s said. If they need to go to convention security, get them to convention security. If they just want to leave, separate them from the people harassing them and let them leave on their own, or ask the harasser to leave. It’s the person who’s made uncomfortable’s choice about who leaves the situation, not yours.
> 
> CALL PEOPLE OUT on bad manners. Explain that bad manners have consequences. Explain that this is a public space, and they can either conform to the expected standards of behavior or they can leave. Or you can threaten to leave — this is a pedal democracy; people show their displeasure by leaving. I’ve told gaming tables “You can have me playing, or your rape jokes. Choose now.”
> 
> KEEP AN EYE OUT for smiling monsters. Once you learn to spot them, they’re easy to recognize. They don’t make eye contact with other men or figures of authority, until they’re confronted. They tend to have head gestures (nodding or shaking their head) that are completely opposite of what their words are saying. They’re not prepared for follow-up questions. They get nervous when you talk to their prey, and start edging away. They escalate on raunchy humor, like what’s described above. They have a habit of boldly invading the personal space of anyone female, in ways that they wouldn’t do to a man.


----------



## Rechan

MechaPilot said:


> #2) I don't recall seeing any prestige classes that weren't available to both genders.  That said, I didn't have a massive collection of books for 3e, so there may have been some that existed in books that I never owned.




I can think of a couple. I don't own the books anymore, but yeah, some all-female Organizations (like the church of that good drow deity).


----------



## Rechan

I know we're no longer debating whether these claims are made up/exaggerated/etc but I wanted to add one more point to the issue:

This happens to guys too, and they don't report it. They often don't make a scene, it's uncomfortable and unwelcome too.

I'm a furry, I go to furry cons. There, the orientation split is very different (surveys show the makeup is about 40 straight/40 bi/20 gay). People are also a little more open about who they are and sexual topics are more acceptable to discuss. Unwelcome attentions happen; guys get groped, they get propositioned lewdly. It's bad enough that there's a warning going around that you don't hug a fursuiter without asking first. And otherwise guys can just be made uncomfortable. I've been in that situation before; I've been aggressively flirted with by men I considered friends, and even though I knew they were being playful, it still left me as a straight guy uncomfortable and overwhelmed. If they'd been strangers, I'd have ran. 

I bring this up because the guys getting harassed don't report it. They don't make a big scene, or punch the offender. Because cons until recently didn't have harassment policies, because you don't want to Make A Scene, because most of us are socially awkward and uncomfortable and don't have the confidence to say something more than 'no thanks' or avoid the people. Not everyone's reaction is to stand up and be aggressively defensive; most of us just hope the uncomfortable situation passes. 

And there's no "evidence" of it. Unless a third party witnesses it (and is willing to say one way or the other), it's a he said/he said.


----------



## MechaPilot

delericho said:


> The gender-specific ability score maxima were _introduced_ in the 1st Edition PHB in 1978 (possibly in The Dragon before that) and were removed in the 2nd Edition PHB in 1989. I don't think they ever appeared in the _D&D_ (as opposed to AD&D) line.




Thank you for the historical info.




delericho said:


> Not quite - the 2nd Ed PHB also made exclusive use of the masculine pronouns, and had a sidebar early on explaining why they felt this was appropriate. With 3e they used both 'he' and 'she', largely tying those to the Iconics (that is, the iconic Wizard was female, so any time they referred to a Wizard they used 'she'; the iconic Fighters were male, so any time they referred to a Fighter they used 'he'). For 4e they dropped the iconics, but I think continued alternating 'he' and 'she'.




The use of different pronouns, like the art included in the books, is a matter of presentation: they are not the game itself.  To put it another way, it doesn't matter what color of plastic your super mario bros game cartridge is, it's always going to be super mario bros when you plug it in your NES.

Although it was breath of fresh air to open the BtVS RPG books and find she/her used instead of him/he, I was never really bothered in any measurable way by the masculine personal pronoun usage.  If all the personal pronouns in a book changed from he to she (or she to he, because some RPGs do use she instead), the actual play of the game wouldn't change.  Therefore, I cannot reasonably see counting that as a change in the game itself.

That said, please don't pretend that I'm dismissing the value of presentation.  I like books with better art than books with poorly-executed art.  I like full-color images more than black and white (most of the time.  I think B&W fits for certain themes though, like horror themes.  And, I think sepia tones work well for pseudo-historical settings).  Plus, as I mentioned before, not relying so heavily on the pin-up style of art has made it so that I don't feel embarrassed to show off the books to other women who might be interested in the game.

So I definitely understand the value of presentation, and how some types of presentation can be off-putting to certain groups, but I don't think we can reasonably call a change in presentation to be a change in the actual game itself.


----------



## MechaPilot

Rechan said:


> I know we're no longer debating whether these claims are made up/exaggerated/etc but I wanted to add one more point to the issue:
> 
> This happens to guys too, and they don't report it. They often don't make a scene, it's uncomfortable and unwelcome too.




Guys definitely don't report being sexual assaulted/raped as often as it happens, or even as often as female victims do.

When a female victim comes forward, she does wrongly face judgments about how she dressed and acted, despite the assault/rape itself always being wrong.  However, there's also the general assumption that the assailant/rapist was stronger than the female victim was (which is probably more often true than not).

When a male victim comes forward, people often wrongly question his sexuality and his manhood under the wrong-headed assumption that he should have been strong enough to defend himself, and that he must have wanted it to happen if he didn't defend himself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Yeah, in that sense, it is worse for guys that report harassment or sexual assault.  They aren't just victimized, they often get completely devalued as men, sometimes even by their friends.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> Not true, in the sense that many (in fact, probably the majority in terms of numbers) companies are privately held, not publicly traded.  We are tempted to say that, well, the private owner is still a "shareholder", but the difference is likely not trivial.  For a publicly traded company, the shareholders are effectively nameless, faceless, distant, and generally interested only in the money.  In privately held companies, you are talking about a small number of individuals with personal approaches that aren't washed out by statistics and distance.
> 
> This is dreadfully important when the company in question is, for example, a game store.  I have nearly no ability to influence the policies of, say, my local Barnes & Noble, as it answers to the large swath of faceless shareholders that influence corporate policy.  But, I know by name the owners of the two FLGS, and I play live-action games with one on a regular basis.  These guys can be influenced by my reasoned arguments, where my local B&N cannot.




You're right that the difference between shareholders and private owners is not trivial.  Even in publicly traded companies, when one shareholder is the majority shareholder, she can make corporate decisions that go against the other shareholders' wishes.

As far as local game stores go, I think most of them are not corporations.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, partnerships, or LLCs, because of the pass-thru nature of those entities as opposed to the double taxation faced with C corps.  Although, some of these businesses may be S corps.



Also, I'm a tax accountant.  Any of you out there with a U.S. partnership interest, or an interest in an LLC taxed as a partnership, need to make sure that your accountant is up to speed on the change in the partnership taxation rules that were passed into law and will come into effect in 2018.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> As far as local game stores go, I think most of them are not corporations.  Most small businesses are sole proprietorships, partnerships, or LLCs




LLC is "limited liability _corporation_".


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> LLC is "limited liability _corporation_".




LLCs are defined by state law and, to the best of my understanding, some states call them a "Limited Liability Company."

But that was a nice catch.


----------



## Rottle

I work for a co-op with 48 owners ( some of the owners are LLCs, some partnerships, some even corporations) all privately owned.    The biggest difference between most usually has to do with taxes and liability.


----------



## Springheel

> I find it absolutely baffling to be honest to think that anyone would think that not making your product more appealing to more people is a good idea. It's just good business. Is anyone going to stop buying D&D books because they have less chainmail bikinis it them? Maybe. But, I'm pretty willing to bet that the primary motivation for buying a PHB isn't to look at pinup art. That might be a reason, but, hardly the main one.




There's nothing inherently wrong with companies making their products appeal to lots of people, but there's also nothing wrong with companies wanting to target niche audiences or specific tastes.  If someone wants to produce or play a swords and sorcery game with chain-mail bikinis and loin-cloth-wearing barbarians, they shouldn't be attacked for not being "inclusive", any more than a sci-fi game should be attacked for not catering to fantasy fans.


----------



## MechaPilot

Springheel said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with companies making their products appeal to lots of people, but there's also nothing wrong with companies wanting to target niche audiences or specific tastes.




Agreed.




Springheel said:


> If someone wants to produce or play a swords and sorcery game with chain-mail bikinis and loin-cloth-wearing barbarians, they shouldn't be attacked for not being "inclusive", any more than a sci-fi game should be attacked for not catering to fantasy fans.




It depends on what you mean by attacked.  People do have the right to voice their disagreement with whatever they want to, and to advocate for changes that they want to see.  This should generally not be done by making personal attacks.  And if that's what you mean, then I agree.  However, if you mean that the creators/players shouldn't have to accept that there will be some who vociferously object to the lack of inclusiveness, then I disagree.


----------



## Balesir

There are also, in the UK at least, LLPs - _Limited Liability Partnerships_. Whether there is an analogous thing in the US I have no idea, off the top of my head.


----------



## delericho

MechaPilot said:


> The use of different pronouns, like the art included in the books, is a matter of presentation: they are not the game itself.




You specifically called out the mention of trans characters in 5e, which is also likewise 'just' a matter of presentation - as a game 5e would be no different if that was omitted. So how are the pronouns any different?


----------



## Umbran

Springheel said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with companies making their products appeal to lots of people, but there's also nothing wrong with companies wanting to target niche audiences or specific tastes.




True.  And if for most of gaming history the pinup-art were a niche thing, I don't think anyone would really complain about an occasional game using such.  But that's not really been the case, now has it?

There is something wrong when the industry as a whole fails to notice that they're being sexist in their artwork.  Once that has been corrected for a while, I think you'll find the complaints will die down.  The more appropriate standard needs to be firmly established before the old style won't raise eyebrows.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Ancalagon said:


> It is with a heavy heart I post this link.
> 
> http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem
> 
> I don't think that the gaming community is somehow immune to the ills of society at large.  I don't have any real solution (except doing my part not to be part of the problem) but I think it's something we have to talk about.




There's a lot of really repulsive behavior described in that post. I feel bad for whomever it happened to.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with companies making their products appeal to lots of people, but there's also nothing wrong with companies wanting to target niche audiences or specific tastes.  If someone wants to produce or play a swords and sorcery game with chain-mail bikinis and loin-cloth-wearing barbarians, they shouldn't be attacked for not being "inclusive", any more than a sci-fi game should be attacked for not catering to fantasy fans.




Sure.  But, we're not talking about a niche RPG here.  We're talking about D&D - which, for most intents and purposes, IS the hobby.  If WOTC were to produce another game, ie not D&D, and go the S&S chainmail bikinis route, then fine and dandy.  But, to expect that from the flagship RPG product isn't very realistic.

And, let's be frank here, FATAL has the reputation that it has for good reason.  Granted, that's extreme, but, it would be economical suicide for WotC to go down that route.  The game is tasteless, and very offensive.  Shouldn't we as gamers, be able to step up and say, "Sorry, no, we don't want that in our game stores?"  

Being misogynistic, bigoted or outright racist is most certainly not the same as choosing to make a game in one genre or another.

Honestly, having read these threads for the past few days, the level of false equivalency that gets put out there is kinda frightening.  If you truly believe that there is no difference between publishing a Fantasy RPG and F.A.T.A.L., then I think there might be some room for self reflection.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Springheel said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with companies making their products appeal to lots of people, but there's also nothing wrong with companies wanting to target niche audiences or specific tastes.  If someone wants to produce or play a swords and sorcery game with chain-mail bikinis and loin-cloth-wearing barbarians, they shouldn't be attacked for not being "inclusive", any more than a sci-fi game should be attacked for not catering to fantasy fans.




I wouldn't "attack" them for that kind of thing, but I'd sure appreciate it if they would stop, and the presence or absence of such illustrations affects my purchasing decisions. I don't want that kind of borderline-pornographic garbage in my life.

But I agree that publishers who make it shouldn't be "attacked" in personal ways. People have a right to sell even things that I find repugnant.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> #2) I don't recall seeing any prestige classes that weren't available to both genders.  That said, I didn't have a massive collection of books for 3e, so there may have been some that existed in books that I never owned.




There are at least two all female ones I can think of.  Hathran Witches, and some all female unicorn rider one.


----------



## Xvartslayer

MechaPilot said:


> If I want to be further educated about a topic, I cannot say that I would choose non-educational programming as my go-to source.  Nova is a good place to learn the broad strokes of things (and they usually direct you to other more detailed sources at the end of the program).  Downtown Abbey?  Eh, not so much.  To be perfectly blunt, I probably would not choose a television source at all.
> 
> Now it's not like I'm saying that people in the beauty industry are some kind of monsters.  I'm sure some are, there's always some in every industry, but most are probably just average people.  However, when your product's purpose is to enhance the beauty of the user, the best and easiest way to create demand for that product is to play on the natural insecurity people have about their appearance.
> 
> And it's not just the cosmetics and fashion industries.  Look at gyms.  They engage in the same marketing game of playing on our insecurities to sell memberships to men and women.  They make men feel insecure about not having big muscles or not being completely ripped, and women feel bad about not being a size zero or not having a thigh gap you could drive a truck through.  There's a gym in my area that specifically sells butt-enhancing training routines to women: they have posters split down the middle showing one cottage cheese butt cheek on the left, and one tight firm butt cheek on the right, and slogans like "what would you rather see in the mirror" and "don't let your booty be a bummer."




I was essentially saying "You are so misinformed on the topic that even a British soap opera would add to your knowledge." But if you want to go above and beyond with Nova please do. I bet the costume designers, set designers and cosmetologists that work for Downtown Abbey know more on the subject than anyone at Nova.

Heck, it might help prevent you from denigrating and dismissing the career choices, passions and hobbies of many smart, creative, motivated and successful women. They should not have to apologize for loving beauty. Or fitness, for that matter.


----------



## Kaminszakr

FWIW, a possible way to get at the data and study it might be to partner with an academic institution and work with some gaming-inclined grad students to gather the info. We did a pretty large study about games and motivation in 2006 when I was at Ohio St and partnered with GAMA to do it (easier to do since they’re also in Columbus, like Ohio St)


----------



## Umbran

Xvartslayer said:


> I was essentially saying "You are so misinformed on the topic that even a British soap opera would add to your knowledge."





If you have to get snarky to make your point, your point probably isn't nearly as good as you think it is.

Moreoever, if you get snarky, you are likely to be asked to leave the thread.  So, please, avoid the snark going forward.


----------



## MechaPilot

delericho said:


> You specifically called out the mention of trans characters in 5e, which is also likewise 'just' a matter of presentation - as a game 5e would be no different if that was omitted. So how are the pronouns any different?




Oh, this is an easy one.  The pronoun usage is a matter of presentation because it affects neither how the game plays nor the descriptions of the game worlds: it affects only the genders of characters used in examples of how to resolve things that may come up during play.  The inclusive statement about transgendered and non-heterosexual characters is descriptive of the game worlds to the same extent that describing the possible hair and eye color choices for any given race are descriptive of the game worlds.  The descriptive nature of the inclusive statement and the coloration statement, unless negated by a declaration from the DM, effectively gives license to create a character that a DM may feel is not appropriate for his/her game or game world.

Admittedly, both of the descriptive statements are very easy to ignore if one is so inclined.


----------



## sunshadow21

MechaPilot said:


> However, if you mean that the creators/players shouldn't have to accept that there will be some who vociferously object to the lack of inclusiveness, then I disagree.




In my experience, the most effective way  to object to a product I don't like is to simply not buy it, and most companies that put out niche products are prepared for this. Complaints about products from people that know full well before they start complaining the product is not for them are usually not worth listening to and reveal far more about the complainers than they do the maker of the product.


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Springheel

> It depends on what you mean by attacked. People do have the right to voice their disagreement with whatever they want to, and to advocate for changes that they want to see. This should generally not be done by making personal attacks. And if that's what you mean, then I agree. However, if you mean that the creators/players shouldn't have to accept that there will be some who vociferously object to the lack of inclusiveness, then I disagree.




Sure.  I guess what I mean by "attacked" is someone saying, "This game is BAD(tM)" as opposed to, "This game isn't to my taste."

There are plenty of games that I don't find appealing--I'm not into space operas, I don't like Westerns, etc.  But I wouldn't complain that a Western RPG is wrong to focus on only that particular setting, or that they should try and be more inclusive by adding more fantasy.  



> I wouldn't "attack" them for that kind of thing, but I'd sure appreciate it if they would stop, and the presence or absence of such illustrations affects my purchasing decisions. I don't want that kind of borderline-pornographic garbage in my life.




And of course you're within your rights to not purchase anything, for whatever reason you like. But some people want to take it a step further and say that NO ONE should be able to purchase it.  Some people won't buy fantasy games because they consider them "borderline occult".  That's fine with me. But if they tried to get the industry to remove all references to magic in RPGs, I would see that as a problem.



> Sure. But, we're not talking about a niche RPG here. We're talking about D&D - which, for most intents and purposes, IS the hobby.




Well, the article in the OP was complaining about the hobby in general (and Malifaux in particular), not just D&D.


----------



## delericho

MechaPilot said:


> Oh, this is an easy one.  The pronoun usage is a matter of presentation because it affects neither how the game plays nor the descriptions of the game worlds




Sorry, I disagree. It very much changed the description of game worlds - while female adventurers were very much outliers in 1st and 2nd Ed, they were now assumed to be just as common as males. That's significant.


----------



## sunshadow21

Springheel said:


> And of course you're within your rights to not purchase anything, for whatever reason you like. But some people want to take it a step further and say that NO ONE should be able to purchase it.  Some people won't buy fantasy games because they consider them "borderline occult".  That's fine with me. But if they tried to get the industry to remove all references to magic in RPGs, I would see that as a problem.




That's not fine with me. Most of the people I find most irritating when this topic comes up are those that are screaming that loudest about what others should be doing in the name of "inclusiveness" while completely ignoring the fact that they are in fact being just as non-inclusive as those they are attacking by not being willing to even tolerate the presence of the opposing viewpoint. The original article that sparked all of this is a prime example of that to me; I get that there are problems in our hobby that need be fixed, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who coins the term "white male terrorism " is genuinely serious about starting anything close to a meaningful dialogue in hopes of eventually reaching a solution acceptable to everyone. The whole tone of that article is very much "burn the infidels" and a rallying cry for the army of would be social justice warriors (and yes, I use that term deliberately to fully mean everything that tends to get attached to it, because that very much seems to be the target audience for that article) to gather together and force everyone to accept the author's solutions without question or hesitation. People in this thread have talked about presentation, and that word matters a great deal in regards to this thread and that article. I have no problem acknowledging that more can be done and that more conversation can be had, but articles like that are the last thing this conversation needs. It simply adds more negativity and hostility to a conversation that is already extremely negative and hostile while driving away all the people in the middle that are simply tired of the idiot extremists on both sides. 

The related article on Enworld itself did a far better job of highlighting the problem while leaving room for actual constructive discussion, and that does seem to have occurred to at least some degree, but for me at least, the vast majority of the constructive conversation has been heavily drowned out. I haven't been able to read more than half a dozen posts at a time simply because too many people are either trying to bludgeon their opponents out of the thread and/or simply aren't listening and are talking right past each other. In the end, I am left agreeing that more conversation needs to be had, but if this is the best conversation that we can muster, the people who are tired of the topic and see no point in discussing it further may well have a legitimate point. There's only so much ranting and raving I can listen to before it all becomes background noise.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> Sure.  I guess what I mean by "attacked" is someone saying, "This game is BAD(tM)" as opposed to, "This game isn't to my taste."
> 
> There are plenty of games that I don't find appealing--I'm not into space operas, I don't like Westerns, etc.  But I wouldn't complain that a Western RPG is wrong to focus on only that particular setting, or that they should try and be more inclusive by adding more fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you're within your rights to not purchase anything, for whatever reason you like. But some people want to take it a step further and say that NO ONE should be able to purchase it.  Some people won't buy fantasy games because they consider them "borderline occult".  That's fine with me. But if they tried to get the industry to remove all references to magic in RPGs, I would see that as a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the article in the OP was complaining about the hobby in general (and Malifaux in particular), not just D&D.




Again, you are equating apples with oranges.

1.  In the OP, she was attacked an harassed because she gave a bad review of the game.  Totally different issue.

2.  You are still equating producing something like a Wild West game with producing a game that celebrates slavery, delights in graphic sexual (including non-consensual) content and denigrates race and gender.  Do you honestly not see the difference?


----------



## Springheel

> You are still equating producing something like a Wild West game with producing a game that celebrates slavery, delights in graphic sexual (including non-consensual) content and denigrates race and gender. Do you honestly not see the difference?




Where did I do this, exactly?  What I was comparing was a swords and sorcery game that depicted attractive, scantily clad people (which is a particular style of fantasy setting) with a Western or Space Opera game, which are different kinds of settings.  I don't know where you got slavery or non-consensual sex from (although for the record, if adults want to play a game about slavery and non-consensual sex, I wouldn't presume to tell them they can't).


----------



## Taneras

Umbran said:


> True.  And if for most of gaming history the pinup-art were a niche thing, I don't think anyone would really complain about an occasional game using such.  But that's not really been the case, now has it?
> 
> There is something wrong when the industry as a whole fails to notice that they're being sexist in their artwork.  Once that has been corrected for a while, I think you'll find the complaints will die down.  The more appropriate standard needs to be firmly established before the old style won't raise eyebrows.




I'd like to point out that its very likely that most of the complaint about sexuality in games would be aimed at games with a mature ESRB rating.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/02/06/esrb-ratings-mature-games/1893507/

9% of games created, at least in 2012, had a mature rating (the above article mentions it was 5% in 2010).  So I'm sure we're only talking about ~10% of the industries creation actually fitting the bill.  I'd argue that's niche.  Games rated "E" (for everyone) made up nearly half of the marketplace (45%).  Moreover, of these ~10% games, what portion of these games have sexual material within them?  The Witcher 3, for example, does have sexual elements but what portion of the gameplay would you say actually contains said sexual material?  2 or 3%?  Human sexuality exists and is a big part of life, ~10% of the games created having some sexual themes hardly seem like an issue to me.

Even if it weren't a small porting of games made I'd still have an issue with this line of reasoning (targeting the industry as a whole).  If Companies X, Y, and Z create a lot of wonderful selling products that have the "pinup-art" theme what does that have to do with a new company that's just establishing itself from creating another similar game?  I guess they have to pay the price, by not creating the sort of game they wanted, for an industry that they had no hand in creating?

You can't blame anyone specifically when looking at the industry as a whole, and perhaps that's why this viewpoint is gaining so much traction lately...  Because blaming someone specifically would likely look bad, why can't someone create what they want?  That argument won't work well.  But it makes it easier to have the industry as a whole shoulder the blame as its not someone in specific.


----------



## Umbran

Taneras said:


> I'd like to point out that its very likely that most of the complaint about sexuality in games would be aimed at games with a mature ESRB rating.




Dude, the ESRB is the Entertainment _Software_ Rating Board.  They don't rate tabletop RPGs, and we were talking about art in RPG books.  And, no, that has nothing to do with whether the game has a "mature" rating.  Chainmail bikinis and midriff-baring "armor" don't get you a mature rating, but they are still usually kinda sexist.

Also that statistic is, I think, about number of titles published.  As opposed to units sold, or total gross dollar sales.  There can be a bazillion "E for Everyone" titles that nobody buys, and 20 "M for Mature" that get 50% of the units sold for the year.  So, that percentage doesn't speak to much of anything.


----------



## Taneras

Umbran said:


> Dude, the ESRB is the Entertainment _Software_ Rating Board.  They don't rate tabletop RPGs, and we were talking about art in RPG books.  And, no, that has nothing to do with whether the game has a "mature" rating.  Chainmail bikinis and midriff-baring "armor" don't get you a mature rating, but they are still usually kinda sexist.




My mistake, I saw talks of "products" and "games" and assumed the talk had moved past just tabletop games and into gaming in general.  I should have read.

Still, though, I wonder if we've established that tabletop gaming really is loaded with sexual content or is that something we just assume is the default?  I'd imagine many would claim that the video game industry is oversaturated with such games but the statistics would show otherwise.  If it's assumed the video game industry is like this and its not, is it fair to assume the tabletop industry is also like this?



Umbran said:


> Also that statistic is, I think, about number of titles published.  As opposed to units sold, or total gross dollar sales.  There can be a bazillion "E for Everyone" titles that nobody buys, and 20 "M for Mature" that get 50% of the units sold for the year.  So, that percentage doesn't speak to much of anything.




Even assuming this is true, what does it show?  That the majority of the gaming population likes mature games.  It's sorta hard to peg this on the industry when they're putting out a lot of titles and the consumers are buying, mostly, specific titles.  So who's left, the consumers?  I don't think its fair to blame the consumers for buying what they want to buy.

Also, looking at the top games sold in 2012:

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (360, PS3, PC, Wii U)
2. Madden NFL 13 (360, PS3, Wii, Vita, Wii U)
3. Halo 4 (360)
4. Assassin's Creed III (360, PS3, PC, Wii U)
5. Just Dance 4 (360, PS3, Wii, Wii U)
6. NBA 2K13 (360, PS3, Wii, PC, Wii U, PSP)
7. Borderlands 2 (360, PS3, PC)
8. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (360, PS3, Wii, PC)
9. Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes (360, PS3, Wii, PC, 3DS, DS, Vita)
10. FIFA Soccer 13 (360, PS3, Wii, Wii U, Vita, 3DS, PSP)

Madden, Just Dance, NBA, Lego Batman 2, and FIFA Soccer are all E.  So half of the top 10 best sellers are rated "E" for Everyone.  So while I'm sure the mature game labels do have a high representation in the top sellers despite being a small amount of the titles produced, overall sales don't favor mature games.

To ground this into the tabletop discussion I guess it should make us pause before assuming that the tabletop industry is one way or another as, again, I'm sure many here would just assume that the video game industry is full of sexual content.


----------



## Nylanfs

So wasn't this thread about harassment in gaming?


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> Where did I do this, exactly?  What I was comparing was a swords and sorcery game that depicted attractive, scantily clad people (which is a particular style of fantasy setting) with a Western or Space Opera game, which are different kinds of settings.  I don't know where you got slavery or non-consensual sex from (although for the record, if adults want to play a game about slavery and non-consensual sex, I wouldn't presume to tell them they can't).




We were talking about games that contain offensive content were we not?  A couple of pin-up art images probably isn't going to cause any sort of ripples.  A "sword and sorcery" game, that contains all the elements of early sword and sorcery goes quite a bit beyond that.  If we're doing a "true to Howard" style S&S game, it's going to be bigoted and misogynistic.

Now, as you say, vote with your wallet and don't buy.  Fair enough.  OTOH, it shouldn't be a problem for a reviewer to say, "Hey, this game is offensive as all get out." without receiving numerous death and rape threats.  It should never be a problem to call out material as offensive.  We should never have to fear for our safety just because we call something out as offensive.

Now, I totally agree that if a group of adults wanted to use, say, D&D, for a Howardian game (or Lovecraft for that matter, or pretty much any Fantasy genre author from before about 1960) as a base, in the privacy of their own home, then no problems.  What you or I do in a private space is no one's business.  

OTOH, if you want to run that game in a public space, such as a convention or an FLGS, then I think it's perfectly acceptable for you (and I mean you in the generic sense here, not you personally) are going to be subject to some serious criticism.  I wouldn't particularly appreciate my twelve year old daughter walking past your table and having to hear that, never mind actually making the mistake of sitting at that table and being subjected to that.

So, no, it's not the same as just choosing to play a "wild west" game or a "science fiction" game.  Context matters.  Where you are playing, and who you are playing with matters a great deal.  That's kinda the whole point about these harassment threads.  People, quite likely without any malice, putting material into public without any consideration for the feelings of other people.

I mean, sure, if you're playing "Confederate Soldier the Gathering", then ok, yup, there's going to be slavery in that game.  But, perhaps playing that game in a public space is not the best idea.  At least not without making it absolutely clear what's going on.  And, if your game of "Confederate Soldier the Gathering" isn't being played ironically, but, rather, the slave owners are the heroes of the story, then it's completely fair to expect that reviews of that game are going to be less than favorable.  At no point should there be threats of violence being made.  Ever.  Against anyone.

And that's the bottom line.


----------



## Umbran

Taneras said:


> Still, though, I wonder if we've established that tabletop gaming really is loaded with sexual content or is that something we just assume is the default?




It isn't really "sexual content" that is the issue.  It is more basic, "women depicted as eye candy for males".  And D&D has, *as folks have already noted* improved greatly in this respect, so that the largest game is not currently a culprit.

Ultimately, it isn't men's place to count and score the representations and pass judgement as to whether they were "really loaded" with off-putting depictions.  Enough women report it was a problem for them.  You don't get to say they shouldn't have had a problem.



> Even assuming this is true, what does it show?




I don't think it shows anything relevant to this discussion, to be honest.


----------



## Taneras

Umbran said:


> Ultimately, it isn't men's place to count and score the representations and pass judgement as to whether they were "really loaded" with off-putting depictions.  Enough women report it was a problem for them.  You don't get to say they shouldn't have had a problem.
> 
> I don't think it shows anything relevant to this discussion, to be honest.




Likewise, enough women have pointed out the same line of reasoning as I have here.  Actually a female YouTuber, I believe it was shoeonhead, brought up the stats I mentioned earlier about video games.  I have no idea how the tabletop industry is as a whole because I've only played D&D but I'd be willing to bet "enough women" would also make the same complaint about the video game industry and after looking at the statistics of that industry it's a much harder argument to make.  In fact, I'm sure those statistics have changed some women's minds about the video gaming industry, so they were entirely open to an argument that attempted to tell them that they shouldn't have a problem because there isn't one.

Please don't pretend this is a man vs woman thing, there are lots of men and women on each side.  If your saying that questioning this assumption isn't appropriate for this thread then I can understand that.  But it is a conversation men and women will be having in more open spaces.


----------



## evilbob

Wow.

First, the meta:  this is easily the most civil discussion board on the internet, at least from what I can tell.  To be fair, these two harassment threads have also drastically increased my blocked list, so I am intentionally missing out, but the fact that you CAN actually ignore all the people being less civil is a great sign.  Kudos to the mods of ENWorld, seriously.  You folks set an example that I sincerely wish the rest of the internet would follow.  I have said time and again that it CAN be done, and this board proves it.

Second, the link:  wow.  I mean, you hear about this stuff all the time, it affects literally every woman in gaming to various levels, but that woman's experiences are truly shocking.  They are also so incredibly not isolated and so sadly common that it's good to keep getting a light shined on these dark places.  It helps to remind the rest of us what the minorities in gaming have to put up with all the time, and remind everyone to keep their eyes and ears open, and know that yeah - it's happening, and yeah - you're probably oblivious _because you can be_.  The police thing was sadly a new one to me - although I'm sure it happens every single day.  I mean, I knew the police had effectively given up on enforcing harassment / threat / stalking crimes committed online (unless they were against a police officer, of course) but I didn't realize how hard it STILL is to get them to enforce those laws in real life.  That's part of what's always shocking about these stories:  it's freakin' 2016.  Why haven't we fixed this yet?

Third, the blowback:  also wow.  It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to discredit, blame, harass, and otherwise intimidate someone who speaks up about how women are serially mistreated in geek culture (which, ok, let's stop pretending:  the correct word for "geek culture" is officially "culture" now).  Ironically calling women "too sensitive" is always a fun one (since they are the ones so sensitive to being told they might be in the wrong) but that's never where it stops.  And yeah, it IS a culture change that has to happen.  It is happening.  It will happen.  Nothing can stop that, no matter how many gamergaters go around to all the different forums and messageboards and try to defend the systemic misogyny (typically with acute misogyny).  The truth is:  this woman just happened to be exceptionally smart and articulate, and like most millennials she's been raised to think that she shouldn't have to just roll over for oppressive, systemic injustice - and she is right.  The intensive retribution she's suffered for simply _stating her case_ proves her right time and again.  _This thread_ proves her right.

And lastly, I know it's been dropped as a topic but the title of her essay was 100% right and on point.  Islam has a terrorist problem - but that doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists.  Gaming has a white male terrorist problem - yes it does.  It's painfully obvious, and yeah - that's exactly the right word for it.  Swatting is an act of terrorism.  Constant death/rape threats is an act of terrorism.  But it also doesn't mean that all white males into gaming are terrorists.  And if it makes you uncomfortable to know that you are associating with terrorists - great!  The article just created a tiny sense of cognitive dissonance in your brain.  Don't double down on your existing beliefs:  I encourage you to consider the alternative for a moment, and see if it is really you who is under attack, or gaming culture - or if it is really institutional sexism.


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> We were talking about games that contain offensive content were we not?  A couple of pin-up art images probably isn't going to cause any sort of ripples.  A "sword and sorcery" game, that contains all the elements of early sword and sorcery goes quite a bit beyond that.  If we're doing a "true to Howard" style S&S game, it's going to be bigoted and misogynistic.




The "offensive content" I was referring to is scantily-clad people, which some people find offensive and some do not.  You went into non-consensual sex and racist content, which I wasn't defending.  I know it's easy for lines to get crossed in 25 page discussions, but I just want to make sure my position is clear.



> Now, as you say, vote with your wallet and don't buy.  Fair enough.  OTOH, it shouldn't be a problem for a reviewer to say, "Hey, this game is offensive as all get out." without receiving numerous death and rape threats.  It should never be a problem to call out material as offensive.  We should never have to fear for our safety just because we call something out as offensive.




I agree.  Threats of violence for sharing an opinion is never acceptable and I would never defend such behaviour.  On the other hand, people shouldn't expect that any claim of offense should be met with complete agreement and/or immediate action.



> OTOH, if you want to run that game in a public space, such as a convention or an FLGS, then I think it's perfectly acceptable for you (and I mean you in the generic sense here, not you personally) are going to be subject to some serious criticism.  I wouldn't particularly appreciate my twelve year old daughter walking past your table and having to hear that, never mind actually making the mistake of sitting at that table and being subjected to that.




I think we mostly agree here as well.



> So, no, it's not the same as just choosing to play a "wild west" game or a "science fiction" game.  Context matters.  Where you are playing, and who you are playing with matters a great deal.  That's kinda the whole point about these harassment threads.  People, quite likely without any malice, putting material into public without any consideration for the feelings of other people.




I'm not sure how you get to this, however.  I agree context matters, and who you are playing with matters.  But I was talking more about companies having the right to create games that some people might find "offensive" than what people play at public conventions.  If I'm making a Lovecraftian game, should I have to consider the feelings of people who believe the game is not only offensive, but literally dangerous, because they believe in the occult? Should I not be allowed to make such a game because of the complaints of those people?  My argument is that the proper approach is to say, "Hey look, this game isn't for everyone...if you don't like occult material, you shouldn't play it".   Are we in agreement on that point?  I can't tell.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> /snip
> 
> I'm not sure how you get to this, however.  I agree context matters, and who you are playing with matters.  But I was talking more about companies having the right to create games that some people might find "offensive" than what people play at public conventions.  If I'm making a Lovecraftian game, should I have to consider the feelings of people who believe the game is not only offensive, but literally dangerous, because they believe in the occult? Should I not be allowed to make such a game because of the complaints of those people?  My argument is that the proper approach is to say, "Hey look, this game isn't for everyone...if you don't like occult material, you shouldn't play it".   Are we in agreement on that point?  I can't tell.




You miss why Lovecraft would be offensive.  Call of Cthulu is very careful to distance itself from the source material of Lovecraft himself which is incredibly racist and bigoted.  Look, this isn't some secret, this is widely known.  H. P. Lovecraft would make the average Klansman blush.  He was a truly hateful person and it came out in his writing all the time.

Now, if you want to publish a Call of Cthulu game, and you keep those elements in there, true, you have that right.  Actually, thinking about it, that might depend on country because, as a Canadian, we have Hate Speech laws, so, it might be illegal in Canada.  Not sure, and since this is hypothetical, we can't really know.  But, in any case, something that is true to the source material is going to read like a White Power screed.  And, frankly, the hobby should condemn any publisher who does this (at least in an unironic fashion).  

If, in your S&S new game, female characters can only be whores, then that's a problem.  And the publisher should absolutely be criticised for it.  Simply not buying the game isn't enough.  There needs to be a public conversation as to _why_ this game isn't being bought and what's wrong with it.



> On the other hand, people shouldn't expect that any claim of offense should be met with complete agreement and/or immediate action.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482661-Harassment-in-gaming/page31#ixzz45wIsCinM




Why in the hell not?  Remember, we're discussing harassment in gaming.  Let's keep this on topic.  If you complain to the management (whether at a con or at an FLGS) that someone is offending you, shouldn't you expect them to do something?  Isn't that a basic expectation?  Even if it's just pulling the other person aside and having a quiet word.  So long as the offensive behaviour stops, that's the entire point.  I should never have to "prove" that I was offended by something.  That's not for you to judge.  There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken.

I am offended is all it should take.  Why or how much is NEVER a question that needs to be asked.  You should never, ever have to justify why you are offended.


----------



## random.brown

Hussar said:


> I am offended is all it should take.




Let's ask the Duke Lacrosse team or the UVA fraternity if unsubstantiated claims should just be acted upon without evidence.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken...  I am offended is all it should take.




You're free to expect action to be taken, whether or not it will be taken will be dependent upon exactly what sort of behavior you're pointing out as offensive.  I know you don't think there should be a threshold, but if you go to a convention staff member or a store owner/worker and report someone for making a comment about how "crazy/insane/nuts" that boss fight was you're going to struggle to find people who will sympathize with you.  Most people will have some sort of threshold needed for a "he offended me" claim to be seen as reasonable enough to take action.

For instance, if I reported your comment to a moderator here as being "offensive" I don't think they'd just take me at my word.  It will take more than "I'm offended", and rightfully so.  Being able to deal with these super small things you don't like is part of being an adult.  And I think a large part of why we're seeing this be a large issue all of a sudden is a generation raised by helicopter parents who never let their kids solve social conflicts on their own as they were always right there to step in.  Only now, the parents aren't around so different figures of authority are being sought out to solve the social conflicts that they've never had to solve themselves.


----------



## sunshadow21

Hussar said:


> Why in the hell not?  Remember, we're discussing harassment in gaming.  Let's keep this on topic.  If you complain to the management (whether at a con or at an FLGS) that someone is offending you, shouldn't you expect them to do something?  Isn't that a basic expectation?  Even if it's just pulling the other person aside and having a quiet word.  So long as the offensive behaviour stops, that's the entire point.  I should never have to "prove" that I was offended by something.  That's not for you to judge.  There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken.
> 
> I am offended is all it should take.  Why or how much is NEVER a question that needs to be asked.  You should never, ever have to justify why you are offended.




I cannot possibly disagree with this more than I do and I will almost certainly get skewered for saying this, but this is absolutely the thing I despise most about people who are pushing for doing more about harassment. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I cannot tell you it's wrong, but the second you accuse someone else, it's no longer just your opinion. Other people are involved and those other people absolutely have a right to question why you are making the claims you are making. They have a responsiblity to do it in a manner that is respectful both to you as a person and the severity of the claim, but no one has the right to simply claim being offended with no expectation of having to explain themselves at some point to those who ultimately have to make the determination of if the claim is valid or not and what to do about it. If I am the manager of the store, and you come up to me and make a complaint, I will most definitely require some kind of reason or proof before I take any action against who ever you claimed offended you; that may come from you or that may require me to investigate further myself, but simply saying "I'm offended" is not nearly enough for the kind of responses that some people in this thread seem to advocate to counter harassment. The sense of entitlement of some people wanting to end harassment pisses me off; they think that because they are offended, the world must immediately bow to their wishes and do whatever they personally think is necessary to make it end, and that's not how the world works. The world can do a whole lot better in a lot of areas to be certain, but expecting to get exactly what you want when you want it while providing absolutely no reason beyond "it offended me" is pure and utter bs that does nothing to actually solve the problem or promote a genuinely useful conversation. That being said, not everyone has the same right to an explanation; the accused and the person deciding the validity of the claim absolutely deserve at least some kind of explanation, but simple bystanders who try to get involved do not, and those that do get the explanation do have the responsibility of respecting both the accuser and the explanation for the accusation. Even if the accusation proves to be false, they still need to respect the accuser and avoid shaming the accuser if at all possible. 

The key throughout the entire thing for everyone, from accuser to judge to accused, is respect. The accuser has no more right to disrespect the accused than vice versa, and both have a responsibilty to themselves, the person in charge, and everyone else around to genuinely listen to the other side and adjust behavior and/or expectations according to how the circumstances play out. Sometimes, that means that the accuser will have to change or leave, sometimes that means that the accused will have to change or leave; most of the time it means that both parties will have to make adjustments. Both parties in those types of situations can usually benefit from a healthy dose of walking in the other's shoes at least briefly.


----------



## Springheel

> If you complain to the management (whether at a con or at an FLGS) that someone is offending you, shouldn't you expect them to do something? Isn't that a basic expectation? Even if it's just pulling the other person aside and having a quiet word. So long as the offensive behaviour stops, that's the entire point. I should never have to "prove" that I was offended by something. That's not for you to judge. There is no threshold of offence that I have to reach in order to expect action to be taken.
> 
> I am offended is all it should take. Why or how much is NEVER a question that needs to be asked. You should never, ever have to justify why you are offended.




There is a big, BIG difference between offense and harrasment, which I'm not sure you're making allowance for.

Offense is inherently subjective.  I've already given the example, repeatedly, of people who are "offended" by the things they consider occult in gaming.  Suppose one of them were to complain about D&D mentioning demons and magic.  They want the game banned from the convention, or from their child's school, or the local game store.   This isn't even hypothetical--such people exist and regularly make such complaints.  Should they expect action to be taken?


----------



## Jabborwacky

sunshadow21 said:


> I cannot possibly disagree with this more than I do and I will almost certainly get skewered for saying this, but this is absolutely the thing I despise most about people who are pushing for doing more about harassment. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I cannot tell you it's wrong, but the second you accuse someone else, it's no longer just your opinion. Other people are involved and those other people absolutely have a right to question why you are making the claims you are making. They have a responsiblity to do it in a manner that is respectful both to you as a person and the severity of the claim, but no one has the right to simply claim being offended with no expectation of having to explain themselves at some point to those who ultimately have to make the determination of if the claim is valid or not and what to do about it. If I am the manager of the store, and you come up to me and make a complaint, I will most definitely require some kind of reason or proof before I take any action against who ever you claimed offended you; that may come from you or that may require me to investigate further myself, but simply saying "I'm offended" is not nearly enough for the kind of responses that some people in this thread seem to advocate to counter harassment. The sense of entitlement of some people wanting to end harassment pisses me off; they think that because they are offended, the world must immediately bow to their wishes and do whatever they personally think is necessary to make it end, and that's not how the world works. The world can do a whole lot better in a lot of areas to be certain, but expecting to get exactly what you want when you want it while providing absolutely no reason beyond "it offended me" is pure and utter bs that does nothing to actually solve the problem or promote a genuinely useful conversation. That being said, not everyone has the same right to an explanation; the accused and the person deciding the validity of the claim absolutely deserve at least some kind of explanation, but simple bystanders who try to get involved do not, and those that do get the explanation do have the responsibility of respecting both the accuser and the explanation for the accusation. Even if the accusation proves to be false, they still need to respect the accuser and avoid shaming the accuser if at all possible.
> 
> The key throughout the entire thing for everyone, from accuser to judge to accused, is respect. The accuser has no more right to disrespect the accused than vice versa, and both have a responsibilty to themselves, the person in charge, and everyone else around to genuinely listen to the other side and adjust behavior and/or expectations according to how the circumstances play out. Sometimes, that means that the accuser will have to change or leave, sometimes that means that the accused will have to change or leave; most of the time it means that both parties will have to make adjustments. Both parties in those types of situations can usually benefit from a healthy dose of walking in the other's shoes at least briefly.




Harassment issues get complicated by the importance of understanding the background of those involved, whether the messages are from a person or an automated source, the factors leading up to the supposed harassment, etc. Your doubt isn't unhealthy, but victims of harassment usually don't become apparent until they've already experienced significant emotional trauma. There is a big difference between mere offensiveness and the pathological practices of a harasser heaped upon a victim. The fact remains that questioning an honest victim of harassment in that state is taking the risk of worsening the harassment victim's condition. Depending on the severity of the harassment, it could be days or weeks before they are in any mental state to answer questions about the incident. The risk of accidentally worsening the condition of a victim far outweighs any consideration of whether they are lying or not at the time.

To put it bluntly, harassment is almost always the art of turning human social situations into a weapon against a victim. A group of people crowding into question the victim is precisely what the attacker wants, because the victim is usually in a mental state incapable of understanding the difference between inquiry and criticism. Thus, your questions begin a cycle of self destruction, as the victim retaliates, bystanders, not fully understanding the gravity of the situation, retaliate back. You become the attacker's newest weapon.


----------



## Hussar

Note, I am specifically speaking to harassment. Simply being offended is not harassment although it could lead to such. 

And note, there should be policies in place. The offended person goes to management and makes a complaint. Management then talks to the other person and that's largely as far as it needs to go. If there are further complaints then more action is taken. 

At no point can someone who doesn't like the occult trying to get DND removed from a school come even close to claiming harassment. There simply is no grounds for that claim. 

Again we see people trying to connect unrelated issues.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Jabborwacky said:


> To put it bluntly, harassment is almost always the art of turning human social situations into a weapon against a victim. (snip) You become the attacker's newest weapon.



Indeed.

In that regard, Ken Burnside's post to Medium, "For Good Men To See Nothing" is worth the read for anyone who feels differently, or is convinced these things don't actually happen.

As well for anyone who takes the issue of harassment in gaming seriously.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

random.brown said:


> Let's ask the Duke Lacrosse team or the UVA fraternity if unsubstantiated claims should just be acted upon without evidence.




There was evidence.  Falsified, yes, but evidence nonetheless.  

Tossing aside the Duke case, which progressed much further than it should have because of prosecutorial malfeasance (that ultimately got him disbarred), the UVA case was initiated because of serious allegations.

Now, if you look around, standard operating procedure in many such type cases* is to suspend activities in which further violations could be committed while an investigation takes place.  This is responsible, pragmatic procedure.  

Imagine, if you will, if such restrictions were not implemented: if the guys at UVA been _actually_ guilty, but free to continue their partying ways unless and until they were actually proven guilty, they'd have had time to add a bunch more victims to their tally.  Furthermore, the university would likely be open to civil liability for allowing that environment to exist while the investigation was ongoing.

Were the men of UVA unjustly harmed?  Yes.  But compared to the harm averted had they been guilty of the offenses alleged, the hit to their reputation was minor.  Society erred on the side of caution, but got it wrong in their case.

Let us also not forget that the Greek Culture is fighting it's own issues of past and present harassment of women and minorities and other criminal activity, just like Geek Culture is, and that added credence to the believability of the initial falsehoods.  For every two giant strides forward they take as a whole, they keep taking ugly, highly public steps backwards.  Some haven't figured out yet you don't haze people- especially to death- get seen doing racist/bigoted chants, or cover up for brothers caught stealing & engaging in animal cruelty.






* The police do likewise when there is an officer involved shooting, for instance.  Hospitals restrict patient access for doctors under investigation of serious crimes.  Etc.


----------



## sunshadow21

Jabborwacky said:


> Harassment issues get complicated by the importance of understanding the background of those involved, whether the messages are from a person or an automated source, the factors leading up to the supposed harassment, etc. Your doubt isn't unhealthy, but victims of harassment usually don't become apparent until they've already experienced significant emotional trauma. There is a big difference between mere offensiveness and the pathological practices of a harasser heaped upon a victim. The fact remains that questioning an honest victim of harassment in that state is taking the risk of worsening the harassment victim's condition. Depending on the severity of the harassment, it could be days or weeks before they are in any mental state to answer questions about the incident. The risk of accidentally worsening the condition of a victim far outweighs any consideration of whether they are lying or not at the time.
> 
> To put it bluntly, harassment is almost always the art of turning human social situations into a weapon against a victim. A group of people crowding into question the victim is precisely what the attacker wants, because the victim is usually in a mental state incapable of understanding the difference between inquiry and criticism. Thus, your questions begin a cycle of self destruction, as the victim retaliates, bystanders, not fully understanding the gravity of the situation, retaliate back. You become the attacker's newest weapon.




And that is precisely why I despise the idea that people don't have to explain themselves. You are basically asking a complete stranger to insert themselves with no details into a situation that is at best unfriendly and at worst hostile and potentially dangerous, but if they react like any normal human being does and hesitate and ask questions, they are being insensitive to the needs of the person being harassed. It's a lose/lose situation for the person being expected to resolve the problem. I fail to see how that accomplishes anything. At the very least, the person making the complaint needs to be able to describe enough of the triggering event for the person in charge to start an investigation. If the person is incapable of distinguishing between criticism and inquiry, they need to find someone they trust to be able to answer at least the basic questions; if they are incapable of doing even that, there is nothing I can do to help unless I was standing right there and saw enough of the key events to move ahead to the later stages of the investigation.

As for the vicious cycle, I already covered that. There needs to be respect on both sides. The person making the accusation needs to be respectful enough of the person they are trying to get help from to give them room to ask questions without having to deal with a lot of bystanders standing around, and the person hearing the complaint needs to do everything they can to keep bystanders away and give the accuser the room and time they need to be able to properly articulate the full problem. An accuser that tries to make the accusastion in the middle of the crowd in which the incident happened is setting themselves up for disappointment because the person in charge is basically forced into a lose/lose situation regardless of the decision they make. Giving the person in charge enough wiggle room and information to do what needs to be done is absolutely crucial, and if the person making the accusation fails to do that, they have to be prepared to accept that the resolution is going to be less than ideal for everybody involved. It's certainly easier to find the space to get things to work if there is some kind of functional policy in place, but it still takes a certain amount of time and adequate information for those polices to work properly, and making the statement of being harassed/offended and expecting an immediate response without giving any more information whatsoever is going to fail. 

This is where the responsibility of the bystanders comes in and where most of the changes truly need to occur; they can either make the situation easier or harder depending on how they choose to react, and the person in charge rarely has enough control over that be fairly called the attacker's newest weapon. If the bystanders are respectful and back up and let the person in charge deal with it, resolution will probably in most cases be quick and relatively painless. If they decide that they need to butt in to business they no nothing about and no authority to deal with, even if the intervention is well intended, that's when the vicious cycle described above usually starts. It doesn't start with the person in charge asking the questions; it starts when too many busybodys deciding they deserve to be more involved than they really need to be. Contrary to what many seem to believe, staying the frick out of the way is often far more helpful than trying to intervene; at least the person in charge has the pull of authority to fall back on if the situation turns out to be very different than what was expected. Random bystanders are more often than not going to be a nuisance to both the accuser and the person in charge, and should probably consider stepping back until their presence is requested or truly required. This does not mean ignore the situation or simply walk away; it means stepping back far enough to give those who have good reason to be involved room to function.


----------



## Hussar

How's this for a hypothetical [MENTION=6667193]sunshadow21[/MENTION]?

You're part of the management of a gaming convention.  A woman comes to you and says that John Doe (whose name she actually gives) said things to her and she is very offended.  She wants you to do something.  

"What did he say?" is NOT the right answer.  

The right answer is to tell the woman that you will get right on it.  You then go to John Doe and say, "Look, friend, there has been a complaint about you.  This is a formal warning.  If there are any other complaints about you during this convention, you will be asked to leave."

And THAT'S how you handle that.  

What he said, how he said it or anything else doesn't matter one whit.  You should ALWAYS err on the side of caution.  If John Doe hadn't actually said anything or it was just a misunderstanding, then there will not be any more complaints about John Doe for the convention and no harm, no foul.  End of problem.  OTOH, if there are more complaints about John Doe, then you simply eject John Doe and again, this is the right answer.

"Is your harassment complaint legitimate enough to me that I should get up and do something about it" is 100% completely the wrong answer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

To be fair, if your job is the enforcer of discipline in an organization, "What did he say?" *is *actually an appropriate- arguably necessary- question when dealing with allegations of language creating a hostile work environment.

Speaking from experience, I know of a situation in which a woman heard "menstrual" when the speaker said "minstrel" in a particular sentence.   Since the error was caught, there was no need to go at the speaker.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be fair, if your job is the enforcer of discipline in an organization, "What did he say?" *is *actually an appropriate- arguably necessary- question when dealing with allegations of language creating a hostile work environment.
> 
> Speaking from experience, I know of a situation in which a woman heard "menstrual" when the speaker said "minstrel" in a particular sentence.   Since the error was caught, there was no need to go at the speaker.




Now, let's use this as an example.  Say the woman does go to the convention staff and says that buddy said something offensive and she wants to make a complaint.

How much would you expect the management at a gaming convention to do to actually ascertain the truth?  Wouldn't it be far easier, and probably standard policy just to pull buddy aside, give him a verbal warning and then keep an eye out for any other complaints about buddy?

Granted, you're talking about a different issue as well - hostile work environment, which has it's own issues.  But, again, AFAIC, in any larger company I've worked in, a single comment is not harassment.  Especially not a "hostile work environment" issue.  Policies I've seen usually start with someone making a complaint, and then the behaviour has to continue after the complaint is made.  If I go to my HR person and make a complaint, it's not like they're going to fire the person I'm complaining about on the spot.  They're going to give that person a warning, probably several - at least one verbal, and one formal written, before even considering firing that person.

There is absolutely no way that a single comment can be construed as creating a hostile work environment.


----------



## MechaPilot

As someone who was harassed (not at a convention, but harassed all the same), I'd like to chime in about having to tell what was said to whom you're reporting the the incident.


Let's, for the sake of discussion, say that my harassment experience happened at a convention and that I had reported it.*

What I would reasonably expect to happen as part of the reporting process is that my harasser and I would both be separately pulled aside, and that I would to have to give some kind of description of what happened to me so that the convention staff could then decide what level of response was appropriate: a formal warning, ejection, lifetime ban, putting the boots to him.**


Now let's get into the arena of what I believe should happen with me in that situation.

If I had to recount that experience while it was still relatively fresh, I would have preferred to have been given a nice safe room to sit in (even a relatively small one) that was away from my accuser, and that was free of an audience in front of whom I would have been embarrassed and a little ashamed to recount my story.

I also would want a plain-clothes female representative to speak to: her being female would reduce but not eliminate the feelings of being threatened that would arise while recounting my story.  The plain-clothes aspect would also help assuage some of the intimidation of talking to an authority figure: I may be a white girl with no criminal background, but I still get nervous talking to security and police.


Now let's talk about the accused.

What I would reasonably expect is that security would take down his information, that would probably include a picture of him to help them find him again later if it were necessary.  I would expect them to pull him aside and ask him what his version of the story is.  I would also expect them to warn him not to leave the premises, in case my accusation included him committing a prosecutable crime.  And, I would expect them to keep an eye on him at least until after I had completed my report, but ideally for the remainder of the convention.

I would also expect security to take down the information of those nearby who were potentially witnesses to what happened, and to pull them aside and interview them as to what they hear/saw.  Individually pulling them aside is important.  A potential witness may feel intimidated to speak in front of other players who may have been complicit.***



Now let's talk resolution.

After my full complaint had been filed, I would expect security to have a follow-up talk with the accused and the potential witnesses, as well as to check any available audio or video footage for potential evidence.

If my claim were corroborated by witnesses (technological or otherwise) then I would expect punitive action to be taken.  Naturally, we may not all agree on what level of action is necessary, so I'm omitting that for now so that I can focus on the process of handling the complaints.  However, if the punishment did not include removing the accused from the convention, I would expect security to keep an eye on both of us for the safety of both of us and those who would be around us if a confrontation later occurred.

If my claim were not corroborated (as would have been the case in the harassment experience that I related), then I would expect security to keep an eye on both of us, so as to prevent any retaliation from either party: be aware that the accused could go after the accuser for reporting the issue, and that the harassed party, when fear turns to anger, could potentially call relatives or friends to help settle the score (as a prime example of this, although I am currently talking about handling instances of harassment, if I were to call my father in tears and tell him that I was sexually assaulted or raped, he'd drive down to the convention center armed to the teeth and looking for blood).



* In reality, I probably would not have reported it because (if you recall what my harassment experience was) I would have assumed the other players would have backed up the DM who harassed me.  In the case of those specific players, I feel very confident they would have backed the DM against my accusation if it had happened at a con.

** This last punishment example is intended to be humorous.  But, at the time of my actual harassment experience it was what I really wanted someone to do to that DM, and to the players who just sat by getting their jollies by watching him do that to me.

*** In my case, this would have been useless because the players all would have backed the DM, but that's also because all those players knew each other for quite a while and were not strangers meeting to play together at a con.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> Now, let's use this as an example.  Say the woman does go to the convention staff and says that buddy said something offensive and she wants to make a complaint.
> 
> How much would you expect the management at a gaming convention to do to actually ascertain the truth?  Wouldn't it be far easier, and probably standard policy just to pull buddy aside, give him a verbal warning and then keep an eye out for any other complaints about buddy?
> 
> Granted, you're talking about a different issue as well - hostile work environment, which has it's own issues.  But, again, AFAIC, in any larger company I've worked in, a single comment is not harassment.  Especially not a "hostile work environment" issue.  Policies I've seen usually start with someone making a complaint, and then the behaviour has to continue after the complaint is made.  If I go to my HR person and make a complaint, it's not like they're going to fire the person I'm complaining about on the spot.  They're going to give that person a warning, probably several - at least one verbal, and one formal written, before even considering firing that person.
> 
> There is absolutely no way that a single comment can be construed as creating a hostile work environment.




I would expect security & admin- regardless of formality, be it cops, rent-a-cops, that big dude Murray, whomever- to ask what happened of each party before deciding what to do to/for either party unless they are actually eyewitnesses to the event.  

Now, that kind of puts them in the judge/jury/executioner position, but that isn't really avoidable


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hussar said:


> How's this for a hypothetical [MENTION=6667193]sunshadow21[/MENTION]?
> 
> You're part of the management of a gaming convention.  A woman comes to you and says that John Doe (whose name she actually gives) said things to her and she is very offended.  She wants you to do something.
> 
> "What did he say?" is NOT the right answer.
> 
> The right answer is to tell the woman that you will get right on it.  You then go to John Doe and say, "Look, friend, there has been a complaint about you.  This is a formal warning.  If there are any other complaints about you during this convention, you will be asked to leave."
> 
> And THAT'S how you handle that.
> 
> What he said, how he said it or anything else doesn't matter one whit.  You should ALWAYS err on the side of caution.  If John Doe hadn't actually said anything or it was just a misunderstanding, then there will not be any more complaints about John Doe for the convention and no harm, no foul.  End of problem.  OTOH, if there are more complaints about John Doe, then you simply eject John Doe and again, this is the right answer.
> 
> "Is your harassment complaint legitimate enough to me that I should get up and do something about it" is 100% completely the wrong answer.



Let's follow this a bit.  I feel offended by your post.  I report you to the mods.  They can't ask me what was offensive or investigate to determine severity.  They issue you your one warning.  You will be banned from ENW for any other infraction.  

This is fair and necessary, right?  Be warned, though, I'll likely find your response offensive  (can't ask why) and you'll be banned.  This is a proper outcome, though, as we're all erring on the side of caution.


----------



## Springheel

> You're part of the management of a gaming convention. A woman comes to you and says that John Doe (whose name she actually gives) said things to her and she is very offended. She wants you to do something.
> 
> "What did he say?" is NOT the right answer.
> 
> The right answer is to tell the woman that you will get right on it. You then go to John Doe and say, "Look, friend, there has been a complaint about you. This is a formal warning. If there are any other complaints about you during this convention, you will be asked to leave."
> 
> And THAT'S how you handle that.
> 
> What he said, how he said it or anything else doesn't matter one whit.




You can't be serious.

You do realize there are people who get "offended" by the most innocuous of comments?  Suppose the woman feels "very offended" because John Doe is playing a female character who the woman decides is too flirty.  Suppose the woman feels "very offended" because John Doe explained some rules of the game to her in a way she thought was condescending.  Suppose she feels "very offended" because John Doe's character history explains that his half-orc was the product of rape.  Or perhaps she feels "very offended" because John was wearing a "Trump 2016" T-shirt (perhaps she goes to the Emory University).

Are ANY of those activities worthy of asking someone to leave a convention?

The moment you start accusing people of wrong-doing based ONLY on someone's feelings, you immediately give up any claim to fairness, impartiality, and consistency.


----------



## sunshadow21

Hussar said:


> "Is your harassment complaint legitimate enough to me that I should get up and do something about it" is 100% completely the wrong answer.




It's less about viewing the complaint as legitimate or not and far more about having the necessary information to actually do something genuinely effective. Just issuing warnings to people who may not have the slightest idea of why they are being warned does absolutely nothing to fix the problem. Zero tolerance policies that automatically assume that the accusation is correct will ultimately cause as much harm as good because you are not actually giving the type of information needed for others to actually learn what needs to change. You are simply telling them that someone doesn't like them and that doesn't provide any kind of help to someone who might have been doing it completely unintentionally. Everyone keeps assuming that the harrassment is legitimate and that the harrsser fully understood what effect they were having on the accuser. In this day and age where people seem increasingly convinced that they are free to interpret things however they feel they want to and have no responsibility to attempt to understand what was actually intended, I cannot assume that the complaint is for an intentional act. I have never said don't take it seriously or to brush off the complaint. I am simply saying that if you are going to create and enforce a policy, it needs to be geniunely fair to everyone. Your hypothetical solution doesn't actually resolve anything when increasingly the chances of the person being accused not actually understanding why they are getting the warning and therefore have no ability to reduce their chances of getting another one are quite high. 

If a person has so big of a problem that they cannot effectively articulate it sufficiently for the convention staff to give an effective warning that lets the person know at the mimimum what triggered the warning, that person does not need to be in that situation without some kind of help or supervision, because they cannot expect convention staff to intervene on their behalf effectively if they (or a friend) cannot effectively translate at least the nub of the problem from their head to someone else's. I get that people need to be careful about how they ask the necessary questions and convention staff should absolutely get at least some training on effective conflict resolution, but the people complaining about this behavior have to learn that they are as much part of the solution (or problem as the case may be) as the convention staff or those being accused of harassment. Simply saying "I'm being harassed" is not enough; if the person is doing it unintentionally and that's all they get told, they can't fix it. If the person is doing it intentionally, there may be grounds for immediate removal or even greater powers getting involved immediately. Simply assuming that all claims are true and doing absolutely zero investigation may solve the immediate issue someone was having, but it does so by potentially creating bad feelings toward the topic and deprives everyone else of the deeper level of information needed to genuinely understand the problem. 

Trying to prevent these people from suffering anything in the short term actually helps create the environment in which they will continue to be at greater risk of feeling pain repeatedly in the future. That is the biggest reason I thoroughly despise this line of thinking. People who have that kind of deep problem never learn how to actually deal with it sufficiently to be comfortable around others and others never learn enough about why it's a problem to be able to adapt their actions to be proactive in combatting it rather than relying solely on a convention staffer coming up to them and telling them they did something someone didn't like. People who see these moments solely from the perspective of the person making the claim fail to understand half the problem; it is not just about enforcing an anti-harassment policy, though that is certainly part of it. It is possible, and our society is getting really close to this, to get so focused on individuals and their problems that we forget to each ourselves and each other the necessary skills and empathies needed to function in public without some kind of outside help (in this case, convention staff or a game store manager). People who are so afraid of being hurt that they can't even tell the proper authority why they were hurt need to learn that functioning in society requires a bit of effort on their part as well a bit of effort on everyone else's part; dealing with negative emotions effectively (or at least effectively enough to get along in public) is simply something that everyone has to learn because it's something that everyone has to deal with at some point or another. 

Our society has become so terrified of dealing with anything negative that a lot of people have concept of how to deal with it when it becomes unavoidable, and that's where much of the core problem lies. Past generations never had these issues to the degree we see them today because they had ways of dealing with and addressing them that our current society lacks because we have become terrified of rejection, risk, and pain in general. Proceeding with caution does not mean completely shielding the accuser from any pain or backlash that may come from any particular difficulty. If someone came up to me and made a complaint based solely on the phrase "I'm being harassed," I cannnot help them. Even if I give a formal warning to whoever they want me to like you suggest, I have not helped them. They still lack the ability to be truly comfortable in that public space because they have no idea if the message was fully understood, and everyone around them lacks the knowledge about what triggered the incident to make things easier for them to come to terms with the problem. All I have done is put myself in a situation where I am ultimately the bad guy to both sides, because chances are very good that unless I automatically assume that every complaint is valid and end up throwing out half the attendees, I am being insensitive to the needs of those who rightly or wrongly believe themselves to be victims, and everyone else is left being very annoyed with me that I didn't even make an attempt at due process for those being accused. 

I guess for me it comes down to the fact that it very much feels like a lot of people feel that they have the right to interpret everything they see or hear however they see fit, but at the same time expect everyone else to fully respect their own personal intentions and thought when trying to interpret their actions and words. They cannot have it both ways. Either everyone is free to interpret things however they please and everybody better grow a real thick skin real quick or there must be some expectation of not just assuming the worst and that others are not bound to act based upon you assuming the worst. The legitimacy of the claim is usually not the actual reason a manager or staff member would want to carry out at least some kind of investigation, and people who are so sensitive that they are incapable of distinguishing between a legitimate investigation and criticism should not put themselves in a situation that they might need to. Whether that means bringing a friend to help cover the details they cannot easily manage or accepting that they simply need to remove themselves from that public space until they can manage those details sufficiently for those in charge to do more than a token slap on the wrist of someone who may not even understand why their wrist is being slapped. 

This may mean that some people simply won't be able to go certain conventions or gaming stores until they figure out how to deal with their problems enough to get along in public; if that is the case, so be it, the world will not stop spinning because one individual doesn't get everything they want when they want it. Just because I have a deep personal problem (and everyone does at some point or another) does not mean that I am justified in believing that I can go anywhere I want and force complete strangers to deal with the fact that I have a problem. Any resolution of that problem begins with me; others can help, but in order to do so, they have to have sufficient knowledge to do so, and if I am not comfortable providing it, it is unreasonable for me to expect them to reach a resolution that I am comfortable with. The ability of others to help is entirely dependent on my own ability to articulate the problem effectively; the vast majority of people don't read minds and I for one like it that way. The expectation that all I have to say is I'm being harassed is sufficient to solve the problem just pushes the problem down the road without solving anything and it stands a good chance of making things worse.


----------



## Taneras

Hussar said:


> You're part of the management of a gaming convention.  A woman comes to you and says that John Doe (whose name she actually gives) said things to her *and she is very offended*.  She wants you to do something.
> 
> "What did he say?" is NOT the right answer.




It absolutely is the correct response.  What if the comment was as mild as "Man that boss fight was pretty crazy, glad we all survived!"?  If that's all that it was she needs to learn how to resolve these minor issues on her own.  She can either understand that odds are the person who made that comment wasn't purposefully trying to put down people who are crazy and is just using that phrase to describe a hectic and out of control situation that the party managed to navigate through successfully.  She can talk to the person nicely and inform them that some people might find that phrase offensive and ask that person to consider that fact next time (although that'd likely give her a bad rep, people don't like feeling like they have to walk on egg shells around others).



Hussar said:


> The right answer is to tell the woman that you will get right on it.  You then go to John Doe and say, "Look, friend, there has been a complaint about you.  This is a formal warning.  If there are any other complaints about you during this convention, you will be asked to leave."
> 
> And THAT'S how you handle that.




What if the harassment/offensive comments are actually bad enough to kick that person out of the event right then and there?  You wouldn't know because you didn't ask what was said...



Hussar said:


> What he said, how he said it or anything else doesn't matter one whit.




So again, if I find your comments about how convention staff should handle complaints about being offended, should a moderator step in and give you a warning?

EDIT: I'd like to point out again that when I made a comment about how far some people want this to go I was laughed at.  There is an element in our community that thinks that "I'm offended" is some sort of magical incantation that allows them to get their way.  I've seen it eat away at some of the other communities I've been apart of, this was one of the only reasons I actually joined this forum.  I've lurked for a *long* time but felt the need to throw my two cents in about this issue.


----------



## evilbob

The "Duke lacrosse team" example is overused to the point of nonsense.

Let's do some math.  There are ~15,000 students at Duke.  We'll pretend that 7500 of them are women (probably more).  Of those 7500, ~20% - 1500 - will be sexually assaulted while at Duke, on average.  Number of students on the Lacross team?  About 50?  So there are still a 30:1 ratio of false accusations to average sexual assaults at Duke alone for that single year.  Now let's add all the other colleges where there WEREN'T false accusations that year:  ~12 million (under 25), half of whom (really more) are women.  That's about a 1.2 million to 1 ratio of sexual assaults to false reports IN ONE YEAR.  Now let's add all the other years that there WEREN'T false accusations at Duke, or any other college, but there continued to sexual assaults.  The point is obvious.  Even if you think the 20% number is wrong and it's closer to 2%, that's still hundreds of thousands more assaults than false reports.

Using the Duke lacrosse team as a counter example is like saying, "that one time, someone who was wearing a seat belt died because of it."  That one time.  Out of thousands of lives saved every day.  You can't justify never wearing a seat belt because of that one time, and you can't justify a muted or non-existent response to sexual assault because of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of false reports.

Yes:  false reports are horrible.  You know what else is horrible?  The hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) of sexual assaults that happen per single false report.  The numbers are incomparable, so the idea that one equals the other is ludicrous.  The idea that because one can happen we still need to err on the side of the one that happens maybe a million times less often is ludicrous.  The idea that nothing needs to be done is ludicrous.

But false reports are scary to men:  that's the only difference.  Even though women are assaulted zillions of times more often, that doesn't affect most men in a direct way - but false reports!  That could affect ME!  That's the only reason why false reports are elevated to such a scare level, and why they are cast time and again as a reasonable response to sexual assault responses when in fact they are _trivial_ in comparison.

(There are many other examples in politics right now of similar comparisons which are nonsense but are nonetheless SO SCARY to the people in charge that they outweigh the nonsense.  Trans people assaulting women in bathrooms, for example.)


----------



## Rygar

Hussar said:


> How's this for a hypothetical @_*sunshadow21*_?
> 
> You're part of the management of a gaming convention.  A woman comes to you and says that John Doe (whose name she actually gives) said things to her and she is very offended.  She wants you to do something.
> 
> "What did he say?" is NOT the right answer.
> 
> The right answer is to tell the woman that you will get right on it.  You then go to John Doe and say, "Look, friend, there has been a complaint about you.  This is a formal warning.  If there are any other complaints about you during this convention, you will be asked to leave."
> 
> And THAT'S how you handle that.
> 
> What he said, how he said it or anything else doesn't matter one whit.  You should ALWAYS err on the side of caution.  If John Doe hadn't actually said anything or it was just a misunderstanding, then there will not be any more complaints about John Doe for the convention and no harm, no foul.  End of problem.  OTOH, if there are more complaints about John Doe, then you simply eject John Doe and again, this is the right answer.
> 
> "Is your harassment complaint legitimate enough to me that I should get up and do something about it" is 100% completely the wrong answer.




Ok,  now let's consider what will happen in the real world.

I'm in a Magic the Gathering tournament at the con.  I end up in the top 8,  there's one person with a deck that can consistently beat mine.  So I have a plan I setup earlier.  I call a female friend that came to the convention separately and have her go report the guy for making an offensive rape joke.  Wait 15 minutes,  call a second female friend and have her report him for inappropriately touching her.  

By your standards he's out,  and I win the tournament.

That's the problem with these policies that permit anyone to declare "Harassment" by allowing them to define what is harassment and then making the mistake of following Anita's "Listen and Believe",  it's trivial to exploit them to gain advantage in competitions or to eliminate people who disagree with you (I.e. Honey Badgers incident last year).  

"I'm offended" isn't enough.  "I feel harassed" isn't enough.  The only way to handle this is to clearly define cause for ejection in the convention's documentation and leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint,  because otherwise people are just going to do what they're doing right now,  exploiting it to eject people they don't like or don't want to be at the con.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's follow this a bit.  I feel offended by your post.



He was talking about a situation at a gaming convention. Your comparison doesn't follow.


----------



## sunshadow21

Rygar said:


> Ok,  now let's consider what will happen in the real world.
> 
> I'm in a Magic the Gathering tournament at the con.  I end up in the top 8,  there's one person with a deck that can consistently beat mine.  So I have a plan I setup earlier.  I call a female friend that came to the convention separately and have her go report the guy for making an offensive rape joke.  Wait 15 minutes,  call a second female friend and have her report him for inappropriately touching her.
> 
> By your standards he's out,  and I win the tournament.
> 
> That's the problem with these policies that permit anyone to declare "Harassment" by allowing them to define what is harassment and then making the mistake of following Anita's "Listen and Believe",  it's trivial to exploit them to gain advantage in competitions or to eliminate people who disagree with you (I.e. Honey Badgers incident last year).
> 
> "I'm offended" isn't enough.  "I feel harassed" isn't enough.  The only way to handle this is to clearly define cause for ejection in the convention's documentation and leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint,  because otherwise people are just going to do what they're doing right now,  exploiting it to eject people they don't like or don't want to be at the con.




That's part of the problem, but it's not actually what bugs me the most about the idea. People who are that desparate to game the system will always find a way to do so; which policy they use to do so is of little concern to such people. 

My biggest concern is reliance on phrases that usually completely fail to achieve the desired goals. Most of the people who feel that those statements are are genuine in their concerns and their complaints; they just have no interest or ability in looking at how those statements actually interact with others. People who rely on those phrases put all the responsibilty of resolution on someone else while expecting very specific results despite the fact that they have given those they expect to resolve the problem any hint of precisely what resolution the accuser expects or why that resolution is justified. They are basically expecting to have full control of the situation but trying to use a proxy that usually has no clue of all (or perhaps any) of the relevant facts in order to exercise that control, and that is pretty much guaranteed to fail each and every time it is attempted.


----------



## sunshadow21

One big aspect that just came into my head that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that most cons and managers at game stores have resources and tricks up their sleeve that are not known to the average customer or con attendee. If I am helping run a convention for the 20th time, I almost certainly know tricks of problem resolution that you as the person with the problem have never even considered; I have probably seen situations that are far, far worse or weird or difficult that most anything you can throw at me. If I am just starting out helping run conventions, I probably know someone with more experience that I can turn to ask for help. Automatically binding my hands by saying my response must be this very specific generic response is going to be very, very frustrating to the many volunteers that genuinely want to help, but know from hard experience that the resolution that people seek is not going to be best achieved in the manner that they, with their probably far more limited experience, currently believe to be the best solution. If I am not allowed to ask questions, I will never be able to find out if there is a better solution out there than what they are proposing or expecting. 

Trying to claim that it isn't worth the risk of harming the self identified victim to ask questions also removes the possibility that I, as someone who is in a position to deal with these concerns routinely from a viewpiont that is more likely to see the entire picture, might have a better idea that would resolve both the immediate conflict and the long term problem. My personal opinion is that if someone is bothered by something enough to seek help, they need to be flexible enough to understand that the person they are seeking help from may need information that is not entirely comfortable and may end up deciding to provide help in a manner that is unexpected and/or not entirely comfortable in the immediate situation but has a good chance of easing future difficulties.


----------



## Jabborwacky

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be fair, if your job is the enforcer of discipline in an organization, "What did he say?" *is *actually an appropriate- arguably necessary- question when dealing with allegations of language creating a hostile work environment.
> 
> Speaking from experience, I know of a situation in which a woman heard "menstrual" when the speaker said "minstrel" in a particular sentence.   Since the error was caught, there was no need to go at the speaker.




My post was in context to the poster I was quoting. Maybe its not what he actually meant, but it seemed as though he was suggesting that expressing doubt/criticism to a victim in regards to their claims is a good idea when in reality it is the opposite.

To help a victim, be supportive and non-critical of them. At the very least they believe such harassment really did occur, and there are likely other factors involved that are not public knowledge. The victim may have survived a war, made a suicide attempt in his/her teens, or possess some other form of emotional trauma exacerbating the situation. Something that would never effect you could well effect someone else.

And here I deleted three paragraphs for slipping into my own issues as a result of just talking about this stuff. It's tough talking about any kind of harassment when you happen to be a person who was harassed into nearly killing himself at a young age. From a person who survived this stuff: Like anything where the damage is psychological more so than physical, its hard to create a single definition encompassing all instances of harassment. That same complexity makes it difficult to spot.


----------



## Ovinomancer

sanishiver said:


> He was talking about a situation at a gaming convention. Your comparison doesn't follow.



Two things:  one, just saying that doesn't make it so -- add some reasons to your declaration.  Two, I find your statement offensive and have reported it.


----------



## sunshadow21

Jabborwacky said:


> To help a victim, be supportive and non-critical of them. At the very least they believe such harassment really did occur, and there are likely other factors involved that are not immediately present. The victim may have survived a war, made a suicide attempt in his/her teens, or possess some other form of emotional trauma exacerbating the situation. Something that would never effect you could well effect someone else.




This is absolutely true, but to me it simply highlights why there needs to be room to ask questions. The process of doing so absolutely must be done with care, but I cannot truly help someone if I don't at least know the basics of the probem and why they feel like harassment occurred. If I am helping run a convention, I almost certainly have multiple tools at my disposal to help them, but I cannot know which one is going to be most effective if I can't find out more than the fact that someone feels like it happened and that they are a victim.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Rygar said:


> Ok,  now let's consider what will happen in the real world.



Wow. 

OK, so you're saying it's absolutely certain not just one, but _two_ females will collude with a male gamer to make a rape accusation--no small thing, mind--so the guy, and not the girls, gets a reward?

Is it too much to ask what world you're living in?

The hidden claim in your argument is that accusations of harassment are equally likely to be false as to be true.

This claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, because we know that harassment of women is widespread to the point of being endemic. Whereas examples of people exploiting harassment policies to gain some sort of advantage are few and far between, to the point of being outliers.

The second hidden claim is that one person losing out on a tournament win due to unscrupulous lying is at least as morally objectionable as the widespread harassment of an entire gender, for which there are deleterious effects to gaming culture and the industry.

The claim does not follow. 

Ultimately, your scenario is a good example of the problem of false equivalency that is polluting this discussion.


----------



## Taneras

evilbob said:


> The "Duke lacrosse team" example is overused to the point of nonsense.
> 
> Let's do some math.  There are ~15,000 students at Duke.  We'll pretend that 7500 of them are women (probably more).  Of those 7500, ~20% - 1500 - will be sexually assaulted while at Duke, on average.  Number of students on the Lacross team?  About 50?  So there are still a 30:1 ratio of false accusations to average sexual assaults at Duke alone for that single year.  Now let's add all the other colleges where there WEREN'T false accusations that year:  ~12 million (under 25), half of whom (really more) are women.  That's about a 1.2 million to 1 ratio of sexual assaults to false reports IN ONE YEAR.  Now let's add all the other years that there WEREN'T false accusations at Duke, or any other college, but there continued to sexual assaults.  The point is obvious.  Even if you think the 20% number is wrong and it's closer to 2%, that's still hundreds of thousands more assaults than false reports.
> 
> Using the Duke lacrosse team as a counter example is like saying, "that one time, someone who was wearing a seat belt died because of it."  That one time.  Out of thousands of lives saved every day.  You can't justify never wearing a seat belt because of that one time, and you can't justify a muted or non-existent response to sexual assault because of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of false reports.
> 
> Yes:  false reports are horrible.  You know what else is horrible?  The hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) of sexual assaults that happen per single false report.  The numbers are incomparable, so the idea that one equals the other is ludicrous.  The idea that because one can happen we still need to err on the side of the one that happens maybe a million times less often is ludicrous.  The idea that nothing needs to be done is ludicrous.
> 
> But false reports are scary to men:  that's the only difference.  Even though women are assaulted zillions of times more often, that doesn't affect most men in a direct way - but false reports!  That could affect ME!  That's the only reason why false reports are elevated to such a scare level, and why they are cast time and again as a reasonable response to sexual assault responses when in fact they are _trivial_ in comparison.
> 
> (There are many other examples in politics right now of similar comparisons which are nonsense but are nonetheless SO SCARY to the people in charge that they outweigh the nonsense.  Trans people assaulting women in bathrooms, for example.)




I'd just like to point out that the 1:5 sexual assault/rape rate at college campuses figure that's been floating around is very misleading.  Christopher Krebs and Christine Lindquist, the two Senior Research Social Scientists at RTI International who directed the survey in question had this to say about it:  "_There are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the number as a baseline when discussing rape and sexual assault on campus._"

This survey caused a lot of attention to the issue of rape and sexual assault on college campuses and helped spur an actual indepth investigation on this issue.  Here's the results: https://www.aei.org/publication/new...2-6-college-women-victims-rapesexual-assault/

The study found that the 1:5 figure was off by a significant amount, showing a 1:52 figure and also showing a declining trend when compared to the 1990's.  They also noted, using the same methodology, that college campuses were *s**afer* than the general population, suggesting the opposite of a crisis on college campuses.


----------



## Taneras

sanishiver said:


> OK, so you're saying it's absolutely certain not just one, but _two_ females will collude with a male gamer to make a rape accusation--no small thing, mind--so the guy, and not the girls, gets a reward?




Several (3+) Canadian women schemed up a sexual assault/rape claim against Jian Ghomeshi, a Canadian Musician and radio host, which the courts just threw out because there was evidence of collusion via facebook private messages between the women and after the dates the women claimed they were raped/assaulted there were loads of pictures of them still going out on dates with Jian, calling/texting/leaving him messages - some of which included sexual themes.  The whole thing really was a circus show.  Feel free to Google it.

I'm not saying that Rygar's story was correct, but these sorts of things happen more often than people imagine.  And I'm not picking on women, no doubt there are loads of instances where men cover for each other to cover up actual rapes or sexual assaults.  I think this just shows how we need to be careful how easily we just drop everything and simply believe anything that we're told.



sanishiver said:


> This claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, because we know that harassment of women is widespread to the point of being endemic.




What constitutes an "endemic", and how do we *know* that it's that bad?



sanishiver said:


> The second hidden claim is that one person losing out on a tournament win due to unscrupulous lying is at least as morally objectionable as the widespread harassment of an entire gender, for which there are deleterious effects to gaming culture and the industry.




Rygar never made such a claim.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Taneras said:


> Several (3+) Canadian women schemed up a sexual assault/rape claim...(snip)...Google it.
> 
> I'm not saying that Rygar's story was correct, but these sorts of things happen more often than people imagine. (snip) I think this just shows how we need to be careful how easily we just drop everything and simply believe anything that we're told.



Let me see if I have this right:

If a story of women scheming against men can be found via a Google search, then it's true because you believe it's true.

If a woman relates stories of harassment of herself or other women, which can also be found on a Google search, then we had better be careful not to "drop everything and simply believe anything that we're told."

That's an interesting double standard. 

I think people would be more likely to consider your arguments on their merits if you afforded the same respect and legitimacy to women and the problems they are raising through blog posts and similar online (and doing so, unlike you, by using their real names and not hiding behind a screen name/alias) that you seem to expect from the rest of us each time you relate an anecdotal counterexample that requires people to go see for themselves.



Taneras said:


> What constitutes an "endemic", and how do we *know* that it's that bad?



I wasn't using "endemic" as a noun. I was using it as an adjective.

Maybe you're confusing it with a word like "pandemic."

As to your question: there's no good reason to believe that all women who relate instances of harassment, or otherwise being made to feel uncomfortable and powerless, are lying, much less that they are somehow conspiring in secret, just as there is not good reason to assume male gamers are lying when they say, "Oh, I enjoyed the Con," or "Dude, my DM in the last game was an ass. Skip that guy if you see him."

"But we must have objective proof!" you say (and keep saying, in various ways, in this thread and the last one), or "But here's an example where women were in the wrong!" you say (again, in various ways, in this thread and the last one).

I just have to ask: are you suggesting, Taneras, that as a rule women are not to be trusted? 



Taneras said:


> Rygar never made such a claim.



Do you know what a hidden claim is?


----------



## Jabborwacky

sunshadow21 said:


> This is absolutely true, but to me it simply highlights why there needs to be room to ask questions. The process of doing so absolutely must be done with care, but I cannot truly help someone if I don't at least know the basics of the problem and why they feel like harassment occurred. If I am helping run a convention, I almost certainly have multiple tools at my disposal to help them, but I cannot know which one is going to be most effective if I can't find out more than the fact that someone feels like it happened and that they are a victim.




I absolutely agree. Just recently when I thought I was being harassed on the forums here, I gave those in charge as much information as I could on the incident. In fact, sometimes a person in one of these situations will give you more than you actually need. I like to emphasize being supportive since it really opens the door to resolving the issue.


----------



## Taneras

sanishiver said:


> Let me see if I have this right:
> 
> If a story of women scheming against men can be found via a Google search, then it's true because you believe it's true.
> 
> If a woman relates stories of harassment of herself or other women, which can also be found on a Google search, then we had better be careful not to "drop everything and simply believe anything that we're told."




No, a story of women scheming to manufacture false allegations against a man becomes true when the evidence leads you to that conclusion; Google, my mention of the victim's name, and the country this took place in was included to ground this instance in reality and allow people to look into it themselves - if they cared to.

And no, any cases of anyone being harassed/sexually assaulted/raped that, like the above case that I mentioned, have evidence to back their claims should also be believed (duh).

My call for caution came in, and I'm pretty sure I made that perfectly clear, when we simply *just* believe whatever we're told.  And yes, there are elements of our community who are demanding that we do just that.



sanishiver said:


> I think people would be more likely to consider your arguments on their merits if you afforded the same respect and legitimacy to women and the problems they are raising through blog posts and similar online (and doing so, unlike you, by using their real names and not hiding behind a screen name/alias) that you seem to expect from the rest of us each time you relate an anecdotal counterexample that requires people to go see for themselves.




What have I said that suggests that I'm pushing for different standards between men and women on this issue?  I noticed you snipped out a portion of one of my quotes where I said that I'm sure that men do the same sort of collusion all the time - which would suggest the same level of caution at just believing what that group of college guys claimed happened as well.



sanishiver said:


> I wasn't using "endemic" as a noun. I was using it as an adjective.
> 
> Maybe you're confusing it with a word like "pandemic."




Let me rephrase the question, what constitutes something as "endemic"?  Where's the threshold between a rarity and something that's commonly found/seen?



sanishiver said:


> As to your question: there's no good reason to believe that all women who relate instances of harassment, or otherwise being made to feel uncomfortable and powerless, are lying, much less that they are somehow conspiring in secret




Thankfully I don't believe that they're all lying.



sanishiver said:


> just as there is not good reason to assume male gamers are lying when they say, "Oh, I enjoyed the Con," or "Dude, my DM in the last game was an ass. Skip that guy if you see him."




There's a difference between a woman being called a whore, or being groped, and someone's opinions about an event or DM.  The former is objective and the latter is subjective.  Believing a subjective claim is just accepting that someone is honest about their opinion on something.  Believing an objective claim, with respect to what we're discussing, is believing someone else is guilty of something.  There's a big difference with accepting someone's subjective experiences and believing someone's objective claims.



sanishiver said:


> "But we must have objective proof!" you say (and keep saying, in various ways, in this thread and the last one), or "But here's an example where women were in the wrong!" you say (again, in various ways, in this thread and the last one).
> 
> I just have to ask: are you suggesting, Taneras, that as a rule women are not to be trusted?




I think that people lie often enough, exaggerate claims often enough, and are mistaken enough to be cautious about just listening and believing.  I'll ask again, why do you think I'm singling out a certain gender here?



sanishiver said:


> Do you know what a hidden claim is?




A fancy way to put words in someone's mouth?


----------



## Green1

Geesh.

I can see why Youtubers like Anita Sarkeesian and Thunderf00t are making bank of this stuff. 34 pages! 

Bottom line, any time you deal with the public, you can encounter socially maladjusted idiots and misanthropes. 

Yeah, it's fun to fantasize about "being right" and the evil, opposing faction being marginalized or punished.

But, this is "the public". Public sessions draw out people at every point in their development The proverbial entitled dude who dreams of gamer chick "asking for it" after a few beers and proverbial lady who is offended even being in a guy's presence. Fortunately, the extremes are uncommon. They are just the *most vocal* And, people DO mess up AND learn. Just because someone does not know how to act socially does not mean they can't learn. Just because someone does have issues towards some group or gender does not mean they don't change outlook. Do you still believe the same way you did 10 years ago? People evolve.

There is a solution though that does not involve witch hunts or creating privileged classes at public game venues. Ones the individual can control. Actually learning social skills if you are socially maladjusted and actually getting to the bottom of why you group one gender (or group of people) as evil if a misanthrope. Hell, an EXCELLENT reason to go to a con! It's a great place to learn to socialize when you are thrown around people you do not know!

....And LEAVE if you encounter either of these... There are other groups at any con.*You DO NOT have to hang with anyone, for any reason you see fit.* It's also a great idea to not be crap faced around strangers. It is also a great idea (to quote the Satanists, of all people) to only mate when the mating signal is given AND not give this signal just for attention. LEAVE anyone who does any of these! 

I mean, what guy really wants to be around a lady who flirts and kisses on you then turns cold after she got all the attention from you? What girl wants to hang around a table while some awkward idiot wants to grab her coochie and act out ERP while she really just wanted to hit Armor Class 20 and participate in a cool story and have a cocktail after? Unless people just like being mad or likethis for some sick reason, LEAVE!

And, if it is illegal or assault... we have laws and cops society pays taxes for. It's not perfect, no. But, it was created so we would not have folks walking up and raping folks, punching people, and taking stuff because they can.

It would save so much issues.

You can only expect the Con runners to kick out those who cross extreme lines. And, no con runner wants cops up in a venue. It is not the Con runner's job to hold your hand. 

Responsibility.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jabborwacky said:


> My post was in context to the poster I was quoting. Maybe its not what he actually meant, but it seemed as though he was suggesting that expressing doubt/criticism to a victim in regards to their claims is a good idea when in reality it is the opposite.
> 
> To help a victim, be supportive and non-critical of them. At the very least they believe such harassment really did occur, and there are likely other factors involved that are not public knowledge. The victim may have survived a war, made a suicide attempt in his/her teens, or possess some other form of emotional trauma exacerbating the situation. Something that would never effect you could well effect someone else.
> 
> And here I deleted three paragraphs for slipping into my own issues as a result of just talking about this stuff. It's tough talking about any kind of harassment when you happen to be a person who was harassed into nearly killing himself at a young age. From a person who survived this stuff: Like anything where the damage is psychological more so than physical, its hard to create a single definition encompassing all instances of harassment. That same complexity makes it difficult to spot.




Been there- black man living in the southern USA.

The point remains, though: however delicately it must be handled, those charged with peacekeeping can't do their job with zero info.  The more intel they gather, the better decisions they can make, and that means talking to all involved.  Sometimes, those questions can get uncomfortable.  But they still have to be asked.

And always, as a practical matter, any investigation security or police or HR makes is per force going to be time-pressured in some sense.

Which means that any situation is going to involve a tug of war between the goals of getting something resolved NOW vs getting something resolved CORRECTLY.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which means that any situation is going to involve a tug of war between the goals of getting something resolved NOW vs getting something resolved CORRECTLY.




And of course the severity of the consequences is a part of that. If you're depriving someone of life or liberty, then the balance is way in favour of correct. If you're jut having a word with somebody, the balance is way in favour of now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Exactly.  You HAVE to balance the consequences of a given potential action with inaction...and that requires info.


----------



## sunshadow21

Morrus said:


> And of course the severity of the consequences is a part of that. If you're depriving someone of life or liberty, then the balance is way in favour of correct. If you're jut having a word with somebody, the balance is way in favour of now.




That's true, but threatening to throw someone out of the con because of what turns out be nothing more than a simple unintentional misunderstanding because you favor now over correct a bit too much is also something that needs to be avoided. There are almost always other solutions that can be applied quickly and effectively once more information is gathered beyond the initial sentiment of I'm being harassed.


----------



## Imperialus

Libramarian said:


> I didn't call her a liar! I said I think the events in the ++++ sections are fictional. I don't know to what extent the author intended for people to realize this or not. I say this for three reasons:
> a) they're completely implausible
> b) they're inserted into the article without any preamble or clarification about their veracity
> c) the author is a fanfic writer and they read like fanfic




Well at least one of the stories can be confirmed here:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/taking-a-stand-against-abuse-284204591.html

*edit* just noticed someone else posted this wayy back in the thread.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Taneras said:


> And no, any cases of anyone being harassed/sexually assaulted/raped that, like the above case that I mentioned, have evidence to back their claims should also be believed (duh).



I want to make sure I understand you here: if a woman can't produce evidence of harassment or abuse while at a gaming venue, she should not be believed?



Taneras said:


> What have I said that suggests that I'm pushing for different standards between men and women on this issue?  I noticed you snipped out a portion of one of my quotes...



Snipping text is a way of reducing the footprint of a quote, so that readers don't have to scroll through a fat portion of text that's already been posted, just to get to the new response (something some folks around here are really bad about).

Regardless, I wasn't trying to hide anything. Your posts are your posts. I can't edit it them and they're visible to everyone. 

As to your question: for two long threads now you've continually brought up examples of women supposedly pulling the same kind of objectionable behavior that men undertake, and then advised that we all remain skeptical of claims of harassment (or worse) from women.

That's a false comparison, to the point of being morally and ethically objectionable. 

Look, some women engage in harassing behavior.

And some women experience harassment and sexual abuse at Cons.  

These are two different categories of people. No, really, they are in fact two different categories.

Could there be overlap between them? Sure.

However, by likening one group with the other _to the point that you would advise Con staff be skeptical of claims of harassment_, you are suggesting the area of overlap is extensive.

Where is the evidence for this, beyond your own opinion?

Worse, the more you press your argument, the more you erode the idea that *a woman's word, by itself, is good enough to merit immediate and swift action* by staff to correct a problem.

I can't speak to your intentions, because I can't read your mind. But I can say with confidence that the net effect of your arguments is to weaken the position of women in gaming. 



Taneras said:


> Let me rephrase the question, what constitutes something as "endemic"?  Where's the threshold between a rarity and something that's commonly found/seen?



We're long past the point of asking this question. Harassment and abuse of women in gaming is a major problem. The majority of harassers are male.



Taneras said:


> A fancy way to put words in someone's mouth?



No, it's a way to skip over a problematic part of an argument and go straight to the conclusion. 

The core of Rygar's argument is that a proactive harassment policy means there is a potential for people to abuse the system, such that a Magic the Gathering player (for example) could lose a tournament via a pair of accusations of harassment. 

His remedy? "Leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint."

In other words, reduce the value of the voice of people who are harassed. This means the value of a woman's voice is reduced, because women are the subject of the majority of harassment. 

How in the hell is a woman's voice worth less than the value of a Magic tournament win? The mere suggestion is morally reprehensible. And so is the idea that Con staff should be forced to take the position that the word of every single woman *who was in fact harassed* is no longer good enough to take action. (Every man, too, now that I think about it.)

Your arguments and Rygar's argument merely work to reduce the voice of women in gaming. They also serve to drive women from this website.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

sunshadow21 said:


> That's true, but threatening to throw someone out of the con because of what turns out be nothing more than a simple unintentional misunderstanding because you favor now over correct a bit too much is also something that needs to be avoided. There are almost always other solutions that can be applied quickly and effectively once more information is gathered beyond the initial sentiment of I'm being harassed.



Which is why you talk to all known parties before action is taken (unless- as noted- security, etc. actually witness the incident).


----------



## Springheel

> His remedy? "Leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint."
> 
> In other words, reduce the value of the voice of people who are harassed.




I didn't read it as "reducing the value of the voice of people who are harrassed".  I read it as, "remove the possibility of misunderstanding and subjectivity as much as possible by clearly defining what constitutes "harrassment" at that venue."

I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Springheel said:


> I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that.



Your definition of "anyone" must be pretty narrow, then. 

And let's be clear: Rygar called for the voice of people who report harassment to be zeroed out. Any harassment policy that includes this idea isn't a harassment policy at all.


----------



## Rygar

Springheel said:


> I didn't read it as "reducing the value of the voice of people who are harrassed".  I read it as, "remove the possibility of misunderstanding and subjectivity as much as possible by clearly defining what constitutes "harrassment" at that venue."
> 
> I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that.




Pretty much.  To be very specific:  "Remove the possibility of people using it as a tool to gain competitive advantage,  or using it as a weapon to further their political agenda by removing those who belong to other political groups (Which is apparently becoming very common now)".


----------



## dd.stevenson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is why you talk to all known parties before action is taken (unless- as noted- security, etc. actually witness the incident).




I don't attend gaming conventions, but nonetheless I have a practical question: do we have a sense of the caliber of security guards these conventions are able/willing to hire?

I ask, because I was a part time security guard during for a couple years during school, and I did a lot of work at (non-gaming) conventions. And let me tell you, the cream of the crop we were not. A bit above minimum wage, backup (we had one former police officer on our staff, and another who'd taken some kind of self-defense class) about ten minutes away unless there was the threat of immediate violence, and all but direct instructions to sweep complaints under the rug, unless they constituted an actual disturbance to the peace. Completely untrained as well, though maybe that goes without saying. I'm sure we were (mostly) decent people, and most of us would probably never have let any assault (sexual or otherwise) happen right under our noses--but our inclination and ability to conduct any kind of investigation was severely limited, to put it kindly.

Obviously (god willing) the larger conventions will have better security than we were--but Umbran's story about a guard being the assailant leads me to suspect that the mid-range conventions are not generally that much better. And fundamentally I'm deeply, deeply skeptical about the notion of an event security guard spending much time (if any) investigating whether or not a sexist joke was told, or whether an imaginary elf was raped.

That's not to say there aren't avenues for enforcement on these issues--especially if the community is united around the idea of stamping this behavior out. Just based on my experience, we probably can't look to convention security guards to lead the charge.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Security personnel quality is HIGHLY variable.  So no, they're not necessarily going to be the best people to handle the situation.  But that IS the job.

Even with highly-trained off-duty/former cops, the same issue arises, though.  They have limited time and investigating an incident perforce means they're not preventing other ones.


----------



## MechaPilot

Your commentaries on the quality of the security personnel are making me feel very relieved that I've never been to a con.


----------



## Hussar

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's follow this a bit.  I feel offended by your post.  I report you to the mods.  They can't ask me what was offensive or investigate to determine severity.  They issue you your one warning.  You will be banned from ENW for any other infraction.
> 
> This is fair and necessary, right?  Be warned, though, I'll likely find your response offensive  (can't ask why) and you'll be banned.  This is a proper outcome, though, as we're all erring on the side of caution.




That's precisely what happens at En World.  You hit the "report a post" button.  The Mod's never contact you do they?  They look at the post and then issue a warning - be it just big red text, or possible ejection from the thread, or possible ejection for the site.  And, you better believe that the more times they have to step in for your (or my) behaviour, the less likely they are to let something slide the next time.

And, note, this is NOT the policy on En World.  One warning then banning is not how it works.  It would really help if people would stick to facts, rather than hypotheticals.  

Now, it helps on En World that we have actual records - they can read the posts.  But, I would point you to the Rules of En World that we all agreed to when we signed up on the site.  Conventions and public places should also have these kinds of rules, posted publicly, so that everyone knows the score.  



Rygar said:


> Ok,  now let's consider what will happen in the real world.
> 
> I'm in a Magic the Gathering tournament at the con.  I end up in the top 8,  there's one person with a deck that can consistently beat mine.  So I have a plan I setup earlier.  I call a female friend that came to the convention separately and have her go report the guy for making an offensive rape joke.  Wait 15 minutes,  call a second female friend and have her report him for inappropriately touching her.
> 
> By your standards he's out,  and I win the tournament.
> 
> That's the problem with these policies that permit anyone to declare "Harassment" by allowing them to define what is harassment and then making the mistake of following Anita's "Listen and Believe",  it's trivial to exploit them to gain advantage in competitions or to eliminate people who disagree with you (I.e. Honey Badgers incident last year).
> 
> "I'm offended" isn't enough.  "I feel harassed" isn't enough.  The only way to handle this is to clearly define cause for ejection in the convention's documentation and leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint,  because otherwise people are just going to do what they're doing right now,  exploiting it to eject people they don't like or don't want to be at the con.





/snort.

So, because someone might commit a crime (fraud is a crime - and you better believe that in a Magic Tournament where you have significant prize money it would be investigated) we shouldn't do anything?  

Who is exploiting the rules to eject people from con's?  This is the first time this has even been brought up.  Is this actually a problem?  Or is this just another way to obfuscate the issue and make it that much harder to actually deal with real problems, just because someone "might" exploit the rules?


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Security personnel quality is HIGHLY variable.  So no, they're not necessarily going to be the best people to handle the situation.  But that IS the job.
> 
> Even with highly-trained off-duty/former cops, the same issue arises, though.  They have limited time and investigating an incident perforce means they're not preventing other ones.




But, there's the issue right there.  

1.  FLGS's most certainly won't have security.  So, the person who has to deal with any complaints is likely the manager/owner.  It's simply not his job to assign blame or determine the truth.  It doesn't matter.  His job is to find a solution that won't cost him business and makes everyone as happy as they can possibly be in this situation.

2.  Most Con's are too small to have actual security.  Sure, Gen Con or whatnot, where you have thousands of attendees, fair enough.  But a local con with a couple of hundred attendees?  Not a chance.  Plus it's not a security guard's job to investigate.  That's not what he's there for.  He's there to provide security.  By and large, any complaint of harassment isn't going to be handled by a security guard, it's going to be handled by the Con manager(s).  And, again, their job is not to assign blame or determine the truth.  Their job is to make the Con go smoothly and make everyone as happy as they can possibly be in this situation.

Expecting them to track down witnesses?  Good luck.  Not going to happen.  Reviewing security tapes?  In the middle of a convention?  Again, good luck.  It's just not going to happen.

So, you put a policy in place that is general enough to allow the manager to have some lee way to determine courses of action (i.e. zero tolerance policies are likely not the answer) but, are also strong enough that action will be taken.

Again, the most likely course of events is that a complaint is made, the manager goes and talks to the person, and informs him or her that a complaint was made and that he or she should cut it out or they will be asked to leave.  Does it suck if it's just a misunderstanding?  Sure.  That blows.  Again, most Con's are small enough that if it was just a misunderstanding, the accused can just apologise to the person who felt harassed and that will be the end of it.

By and large, that will be the end of the majority of issues.  Just like any other public venue.  

Personal anecdote time.  I'm on the staff of the local Teacher's Association.  We get together every month for training and seminars and afterward we all go out for dinner and a drink.  Fifteen, twenty people usually.  I received a complaint after one night that someone had said something offensive.  My first response was, "Was it me?"  ((I can be kinda loud, boisterous and opinionated... the hell you say? )) but, no, it wasn't me.  And names weren't actually used.  Just that someone said something that was offensive.  So, I took this information, had a quiet word with everyone, not pointing any fingers, not accusing anyone of anything, that maybe toning things down and being a bit circumspect in their humour was a good idea.  Problem solved and everyone, AFAIK, is happy.

THAT'S how the vast majority of harassment issues are handled.  At least, AFAIC, how they should be handled.  The point of a harassment policy isn't to punish harassers.  

The point of harassment policies is to stop harassment.

If the harassment stops, job finished and everyone goes about their business.  These ideas of punishment and whatnot, that's for the police and lawyers.  Someone making dead baby jokes at a game table isn't a criminal.  There's no need for police to get involved.  But, there is need for the community to tell that guy (or girl) to tone it down and watch what they are saying.  All this other crap about the need to get the _truth_ is just missing the forest for the trees.  The point of these policies is to provide a space where we can all be together without having to deal with other people's crap.

En World is proof that these policies, when enforced, work perfectly well.  No one involves the police over Modable statements on En World.  There would be no reason to.  But, we certainly can report things to the Mods and have a reasonable expectation of action being taken.  That's the way things should work in the real world as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> But, there's the issue right there.
> 
> 1.  FLGS's most certainly won't have security.  So, the person who has to deal with any complaints is likely the manager/owner.  It's simply not his job to assign blame or determine the truth.  It doesn't matter.  His job is to find a solution that won't cost him business and makes everyone as happy as they can possibly be in this situation.




I addressed this either earlier in this thread or in the one that for closed- it is highly unlikely that the person running a game store has the training or time to do an actual investigation.  So after hearing from both sides, the pragmatic solution is to eject the accused _if_ the accuser's allegation is believable.



> 2.  Most Con's are too small to have actual security.  Sure, Gen Con or whatnot, where you have thousands of attendees, fair enough.  But a local con with a couple of hundred attendees?  Not a chance.  Plus it's not a security guard's job to investigate.  That's not what he's there for.  He's there to provide security.  By and large, any complaint of harassment isn't going to be handled by a security guard, it's going to be handled by the Con manager(s).  And, again, their job is not to assign blame or determine the truth.  Their job is to make the Con go smoothly and make everyone as happy as they can possibly be in this situation.




We're not talking CSI here.  "Investigate" here means no more than actually talking to the parties involved, and considering any obvious evidence- security cams, any phone vids, etc.



> Expecting them to track down witnesses?  Good luck.  Not going to happen.  Reviewing security tapes?  In the middle of a convention?  Again, good luck.  It's just not going to happen.




Again, I addressed this.  I agree that there is generally not enough time to ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.  Security have to question, assess, and take action they deem appropriate before resuming patrol.

Bare minimum, they need to talk to anyone they believe to be involved, and ideally, take names & contact info.  Reviewing of security footage need not be done immediately, since it can be submitted to police in the future.



> Personal anecdote time.  I'm on the staff of the local Teacher's Association.  We get together every month for training and seminars and afterward we all go out for dinner and a drink.  Fifteen, twenty people usually.  I received a complaint after one night that someone had said something offensive.  My first response was, "Was it me?"  ((I can be kinda loud, boisterous and opinionated... the hell you say? )) but, no, it wasn't me.  And names weren't actually used.  Just that someone said something that was offensive.  So, I took this information, had a quiet word with everyone, not pointing any fingers, not accusing anyone of anything, that maybe toning things down and being a bit circumspect in their humour was a good idea.  Problem solved and everyone, AFAIK, is happy.




That's about as good as you can get with no names involved, no particular persons IDed.



> The point of a harassment policy isn't to punish harassers.
> 
> The point of harassment policies is to stop harassment.




Yep.



> En World is proof that these policies, when enforced, work perfectly well.  No one involves the police over Modable statements on En World.  There would be no reason to.  But, we certainly can report things to the Mods and have a reasonable expectation of action being taken.  That's the way things should work in the real world as well.




When you report something to a mod, the mod knows your complaint, and can see the words of the person accused.  They then take action, up to and including a permaban.

...which is largely the same as listening to both parties in the Con incident, then deciding quickly what to do about it, and moving on.


----------



## sunshadow21

Hussar said:


> THAT'S how the vast majority of harassment issues are handled.  At least, AFAIC, how they should be handled.  The point of a harassment policy isn't to punish harassers.
> 
> The point of harassment policies is to stop harassment.




And if that is how they actually get used, they work fantastically, but I would say that it's fairly clear that's not how it ends up playing out in most of the scenarios that people are mentioning in this thread. In most small conventions and game stores, the policy doesn't actually kick in because they are small enough that it doesn't take an in depth investigation to figure out enough of what happened to for someone to either help the person making the complaint deal with the immediate problem and/or talk to the person that was claimed to be the source of the problem with very little fuss or difficulty. Most of the time one of the volunteers or workers (note, it doesn't have to be formal security) saw it or were close enough that they can get wind of it quickly enough to resolve it before it requires much more what you described. Most people who talk to the supposed offender though don't threaten to kick them out of the store/con; they will mention that the person need be mindful of the public place, keep an eye on both the accuser and the accused and leave it at that. That is where the big difference in what you are saying and I am saying comes in. Anything that comes with a formal warning of being kicked out almost certainly come as a result of either an investigation of some kind and/or repeated problems. That warning usually does come from formal security or an actual manager/convention organizer, and you can be certain that it didn't come out of thin air or is based solely on someone making the simple claim of being harassed without providing details. In most cases, I would suspect that staff is the preferred source for more information, as they are going to be the more reliable and consistent source that doesn't create a lot of extra headache, but that doesn't mean that the accuser is immune to having to answer questions related to the complaint if there is genuinely no one else who can answer them and the complaint is severe enough. Claims of sexual harassment especially are likely to create questions that the accuser is going to have to answer as the severity in today's climate is high enough that some kind of investigation is almost certainly going to be required if it's anything more than someone complaining about a random comment. I am by no means saying that the accuser will always have to answer more questions, but especially at medium to larger cons, the probability is quite high that whatever staff member is trying to help is going to require more than a simple statement of someone claiming to be harassed if for no other reason than it's quite possible that tracking down the person who supposedly caused the problem is going to be difficult at best and near impossible at worst, meaning that it isn't actually going to save them time or effort to use that particular approach. At that point, asking the person making the complaint for more details is going to be necessary to figure out if which of the various options they have available to them is truly going to be the best option.

EnWorld isn't that much different in that regard; they will flag a particular post or make a specific comment if they see a big enough problem, but they aren't going to actually threaten anything more serious than that unless it becomes clear that it's a repeat offender that refuses to listen; in this case, the investigation consists of someone reading the posts in questions and making a judgment call based on them. The investigation isn't that hard or long or time consuming, but it is there, but just because it often happens almost automatically and frequently almost instaneously in most instance does not mean that the resolution is being based entirely on a simple complaint of harassment. Other information is being utilized even if the person making the complaint doesn't realize it. In smaller gaming spaces, like a store or a small con, they generally don't have to worry about the distinction. You get to the medium and larger cons, the distinction suddenly matters a lot. A staff member trying to deal with the situation not only has to deal with the complaint, but also usually has to be aware of how having a crap ton of bystanders around is going to impact how they resolve it. They may very need to pull the person with the problem aside if for no other reason than to remove the difficulty of dealing with the bystanders and that alone will push the situation beyond the kind of resolution you seem to think should be the norm. At that point, it is absolutely crucial for the person making the complaint to understand that their ability to simply make a single statement and walk away while letting someone else deal with it is gone.


----------



## Quartz

I've only read the first two pages, but let me ask what I hope is a pertinent question: is this a RPG thing or a male thing? Could you replace 'roleplaying' with any other male-dominated activity - for example 'football' - and get the same activities and issues? 

Indeed, could you replace 'roleplaying' with a female-dominated activity and get the same or similar activities and issues but with men as the targets?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Quartz said:


> I've only read the first two pages, but let me ask what I hope is a pertinent question: is this a RPG thing or a male thing? Could you replace 'roleplaying' with any other male-dominated activity - for example 'football' - and get the same activities and issues?




Sadly, yes, in all probability.



> Indeed, could you replace 'roleplaying' with a female-dominated activity and get the same or similar activities and issues but with men as the targets?




From what I know, yes...and again, the majority of the victimizers are male.


----------



## Springheel

> Now, it helps on En World that we have actual records - they can read the posts.




Would you prefer the mods act when something is reported _without _reading the offending posts?  That's the equivalent of "ask no questions".  

And you don't have to look very far to find real life examples of people abusing such systems.  Facebook automatically shuts down pages that get a certain number of complaints for "bullying" or "harrassment", and people routinely use this to try and silence people who are expressing opinions they don't agree with (there seem to be plenty of people who can't or won't separate "disagreement" from "harrassment").


----------



## Taneras

sanishiver said:


> I want to make sure I understand you here: if a woman can't produce evidence of harassment or abuse while at a gaming venue, she should not be believed?




I'm speaking about people, both men and women.  I never said that it was solely the victims responsibility to bring forth evidence.  The staff could see if there are any witnesses, check camera footage (if its at a store/event with a camera), perhaps see if there are any other complaints about that specific person from others.  There's a whole lot of area between "I totally believe you" and "I'm positive you're lying".

Moreover I want to stress what started this particular discussion - Hussar's claim that we need to instantly believe the person claiming they've been harassed or was offended and not ask any questions.



sanishiver said:


> Snipping text is a way of reducing the footprint of a quote, so that readers don't have to scroll through a fat portion of text that's already been posted, just to get to the new response (something some folks around here are really bad about).




Just so we're clear, you snipped 2 sentences out of 6 or 7 sentences which coincidentally were very important to the distinctions I was making.  I wasn't typing a novel, that response was 5 lines in total.



sanishiver said:


> As to your question: for two long threads now you've continually brought up examples of women supposedly pulling the same kind of objectionable behavior that men undertake, and then advised that we all remain skeptical of claims of harassment (or worse) from women.




I'm fairly sure that the aforementioned rape/sexual assault case against the Canadian musician was the only specific example I've brought up and I've made it clear that the majority of the harassment is coming from men.  Maybe there was a second that I can't recall, but that hardly constitutes "continually".  You're using strong language to try and fan the flames.  The harassment problem is endemic to the table top community, I'm continually bringing up instances of women doing bad things, etc.



sanishiver said:


> Look, some women engage in harassing behavior.  And some women experience harassment and sexual abuse at Cons.  These are two different categories of people. No, really, they are in fact two different categories.  Could there be overlap between them? Sure.  However, by likening one group with the other _to the point that you would advise Con staff be skeptical of claims of harassment_, you are suggesting the area of overlap is extensive.




I agree.  I've hardly touched on the aspect of women doing the harassing because the majority comes from men, and I've stated that repeatedly in the previous thread.  Where did you get the idea that I was trying to over inflate the women harassers to posit an extreme overlap?



sanishiver said:


> Worse, the more you press your argument, the more you erode the idea that *a woman's word, by itself, is good enough to merit immediate and swift action* by staff to correct a problem.




This line of reasoning seems dishonest, as I've made it crystal clear that what I'm advocating would apply both to men and women and here you are, with bolding text no less, painting my statements as if they're only applying to women.  You've also switched up the argument here, we were talking about whether to believe the victim solely on their own word, now you've moved it to "swift action".  I've said that I wasn't against separating the people involved, that's swift action.  I'm perfectly ok with the staff being skeptical but still looking into the matter by questioning potential witnesses, looking at film, or keeping track of who's complaining against who and looking for patterns, that's swift action.

Please try and accurately represent what I'm saying.



sanishiver said:


> We're long past the point of asking this question. Harassment and abuse of women in gaming is a major problem. The majority of harassers are male.




I understand the apprehensiveness to bring up something that's been settled, so perhaps you can point me to the discussion where this "harassment is endemic to the table top community" was established so I can look at both sides of the argument and decide for myself?

And I do agree that harassment is a problem, one instance is one too many and constitutes a problem.  I agree that a sizeable portion of it is directed at women, and I agree that the majority of the harassers are male.  I'm only questioning the "endemic" comment.  Just like the 1:5 rape statistics on college campuses actually being 1:52, perhaps this problem is also being over exaggerated.



sanishiver said:


> In other words, reduce the value of the voice of people who are harassed. This means the value of a woman's voice is reduced, because women are the subject of the majority of harassment.




*Sexual harassment*.  If the tabletop community is the same as the gaming community or the internet as a whole, males receive more harassment overall than females.  Females have higher complaints of stalking and sexual harassment, but overall males report higher harassment when looking at all types of harassment.

Moreover, while his example did specify women nothing else in his post did.  His remedy to "Leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint." was because "people" (not just women) would abuse it.  Notice he specified "person" that was making the complaint, and not "woman".  After the example he mentioned "people" 4 times and didn't mention gender a single time.  I won't speak for him, but nothing he said necessitates that he was saying what you're suggesting he said.  Perhaps that's how he feels, but you can't pull that from what he's said so far.



sanishiver said:


> Your arguments and Rygar's argument merely work to reduce the voice of women in gaming. They also serve to drive women from this website.




No, your strong language and mischaracterization is.  The harassment of women is endemic to the tabletop community, people who caution the idea that we should instantly, and unquestioningly, believe all harassment claims are actually people who just want to diminish the voices of women, posters are "continually" bringing up supposed harassment enacted by women to water down the issue, etc.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hussar said:


> But, there's the issue right there.
> 
> 1.  FLGS's most certainly won't have security.  So, the person who has to deal with any complaints is likely the manager/owner.  It's simply not his job to assign blame or determine the truth.  It doesn't matter.  His job is to find a solution that won't cost him business and makes everyone as happy as they can possibly be in this situation.
> 
> 2.  Most Con's are too small to have actual security.  Sure, Gen Con or whatnot, where you have thousands of attendees, fair enough.  But a local con with a couple of hundred attendees?  Not a chance.  Plus it's not a security guard's job to investigate.  That's not what he's there for.  He's there to provide security.  By and large, any complaint of harassment isn't going to be handled by a security guard, it's going to be handled by the Con manager(s).  And, again, their job is not to assign blame or determine the truth.  Their job is to make the Con go smoothly and make everyone as happy as they can possibly be in this situation.




Focusing on just this part of the post.

A FLGS which conducts public events has a responsibility to handle the public.  Heck, any business which has the public in through the day has to handle the public.  The ability is a job requirement.  And especially, say, is a store has a game room.

A few hundred people is a large enough size that having a plan to manage order is necessary.  There will be folks at the entrance, and I would expect the local police have been informed about the gathering and check in now and again.  The folks who run the facility would probably themselves have a couple of guards on hand.  I can't imagine a proprietor renting out the facility without requiring a security plan.

In either case, I would expect a policy and a plan for managing disturbances.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sadly, yes, in all probability.




From the (admittedly informal) numbers I have seen, the gaming community comes off slightly worse than the world as a whole.  That may or may not be statistically relevant, due to the informal nature of the numbers we have.

However, if we are going to view this as a community, there are social ties we could use to make it *better* than the surrounding world, if we wanted. 




			
				Quartz said:
			
		

> Indeed, could you replace 'roleplaying' with a female-dominated activity and get the same or similar activities and issues but with men as the targets?




I'm going to guess that, on the subject of sexual harassment, no.  I don't think that you'd find women groping men as often as men do the same to women, for example.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> there seem to be plenty of people who can't or won't separate "disagreement" from "harrassment"




So very true.


----------



## Rygar

Taneras said:


> I understand the apprehensiveness to bring up something that's been settled, so perhaps you can point me to the discussion where this "harassment is endemic to the table top community" was established so I can look at both sides of the argument and decide for myself?
> 
> And I do agree that harassment is a problem, one instance is one too many and constitutes a problem.  I agree that a sizeable portion of it is directed at women, and I agree that the majority of the harassers are male.  I'm only questioning the "endemic" comment.  Just like the 1:5 rape statistics on college campuses actually being 1:52, perhaps this problem is also being over exaggerated.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sexual harassment*.  If the tabletop community is the same as the gaming community or the internet as a whole, males receive more harassment overall than females.  Females have higher complaints of stalking and sexual harassment, but overall males report higher harassment when looking at all types of harassment.
> 
> Moreover, while his example did specify women nothing else in his post did.  His remedy to "Leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint." was because "people" (not just women) would abuse it.  Notice he specified "person" that was making the complaint, and not "woman".  After the example he mentioned "people" 4 times and didn't mention gender a single time.  I won't speak for him, but nothing he said necessitates that he was saying what you're suggesting he said.  Perhaps that's how he feels, but you can't pull that from what he's said so far.




I'll specifically state that so there is no confusion.  People,  not women,  not minorities,  people.  In fact,  from what I've seen the biggest abusers of "Harassment!" come from men characterizing anyone who disagrees with a woman as "Harassment" so that they can then white knight them.  

I'll also point out,  as someone who spent 15 years working in a female dominated field,  harassment and sexual harassment are far from the sole domain of men.  I'll also definitively state from past experiences,  if you're male in a female dominated field you are screwed.  No one is going to stop it,  or even listen to you about it,  or if they do they're going to blame you for it because you're male.  Least of all the political activists.

To be very blunt,  anyone who enters this conversation thinking it's about women have no idea what harassment really is.  Harassment is something that happens to *people*.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

When it comes to harassment in gaming, yeah it's pretty much about women.


----------



## Hussar

tomBitonti said:


> Focusing on just this part of the post.
> 
> A FLGS which conducts public events has a responsibility to handle the public.  Heck, any business which has the public in through the day has to handle the public.  The ability is a job requirement.  And especially, say, is a store has a game room.
> 
> A few hundred people is a large enough size that having a plan to manage order is necessary.  There will be folks at the entrance, and I would expect the local police have been informed about the gathering and check in now and again.  The folks who run the facility would probably themselves have a couple of guards on hand.  I can't imagine a proprietor renting out the facility without requiring a security plan.
> 
> In either case, I would expect a policy and a plan for managing disturbances.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




I highly, highly doubt you have hired security for small con's.  Sure, you probably have someone at the door taking tickets, but, beyond that, not much if anything at all.  We're talking a con run at a hotel convention room - that sort of thing.  So, no video surveillance, probably little or no security beyond the people running the convention itself.  Would you expect local police to check in at every convention held at a hotel?  I certainly wouldn't.  And how many hotels have hired security?  Maybe a guy in the back watching cameras, if that.

A couple of hundred people isn't exactly a big gathering.  Heck, that's a wedding reception.  Would you expect police presence and security guards at a wedding reception?  Have you ever seen them?  ((Ok, maybe police, but, that's usually _after_ a call to the police.))

-----------

And, again, sure, it sucks to be singled out by the management after a complaint.  But, let's keep this in context.  Person makes a complaint saying Bloggins is making inappropriate comments.  It's the only complaint about Bloggins.  And the person making the complaint doesn't really specifically state what Bloggins said.  Is the management going to eject Bloggins?  No, of course not.  Maybe first they hang out around Bloggins for a few minutes to see if he says anything, then they simply inform him (quietly) that there has been a complaint and could he please watch what he says.

How is this a problem?

If the complaint is bogus, then there won't be any other complaints and, well, the problem goes away.  If the complaint is real and Bloggins stops, then success!  We stopped the harassment.  If the complaint is real and then other complaints come in, well, then we take further action.  But, at no point should your first question be, "Well, did he harass you _enough_ that I should take action?"  Which is precisely what questioning the complaining person is doing.  I most certainly don't want some person trying to determine, in the chaos of a Convention whether or not he should have a quiet word with that dude that's telling dead baby jokes.  Just do it.  Go, have a word, err on the side of caution.  If someone has actually, in person, taken the time to make a complaint, odds are, they are not targeting some random dude at a convention for the fun of it.  

Is it possible that a complaint might be fabricated?  Yup, it's possible.  But, what's more likely?  That some woman, completely at random, singles out some dude for a harassment complaint at a gaming convention, or that some dude actually did say something inappropriate?  "Oh, well, all he's doing is telling dead baby jokes, just avoid him, he does that" is the wrong answer.


----------



## Hussar

tomBitonti said:


> Focusing on just this part of the post.
> 
> A FLGS which conducts public events has a responsibility to handle the public.  Heck, any business which has the public in through the day has to handle the public.  The ability is a job requirement.  And especially, say, is a store has a game room.
> 
> A few hundred people is a large enough size that having a plan to manage order is necessary.  There will be folks at the entrance, and I would expect the local police have been informed about the gathering and check in now and again.  The folks who run the facility would probably themselves have a couple of guards on hand.  I can't imagine a proprietor renting out the facility without requiring a security plan.
> 
> In either case, I would expect a policy and a plan for managing disturbances.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




I highly, highly doubt you have hired security for small con's.  Sure, you probably have someone at the door taking tickets, but, beyond that, not much if anything at all.  We're talking a con run at a hotel convention room - that sort of thing.  So, no video surveillance, probably little or no security beyond the people running the convention itself.  Would you expect local police to check in at every convention held at a hotel?  I certainly wouldn't.  And how many hotels have hired security?  Maybe a guy in the back watching cameras, if that.

A couple of hundred people isn't exactly a big gathering.  Heck, that's a wedding reception.  Would you expect police presence and security guards at a wedding reception?  Have you ever seen them?  ((Ok, maybe police, but, that's usually _after_ a call to the police.))

-----------

And, again, sure, it sucks to be singled out by the management after a complaint.  But, let's keep this in context.  Person makes a complaint saying Bloggins is making inappropriate comments.  It's the only complaint about Bloggins.  And the person making the complaint doesn't really specifically state what Bloggins said.  Is the management going to eject Bloggins?  No, of course not.  Maybe first they hang out around Bloggins for a few minutes to see if he says anything, then they simply inform him (quietly) that there has been a complaint and could he please watch what he says.

How is this a problem?

If the complaint is bogus, then there won't be any other complaints and, well, the problem goes away.  If the complaint is real and Bloggins stops, then success!  We stopped the harassment.  If the complaint is real and then other complaints come in, well, then we take further action.  But, at no point should your first question be, "Well, did he harass you _enough_ that I should take action?"  Which is precisely what questioning the complaining person is doing.  I most certainly don't want some person trying to determine, in the chaos of a Convention whether or not he should have a quiet word with that dude that's telling dead baby jokes.  Just do it.  Go, have a word, err on the side of caution.  If someone has actually, in person, taken the time to make a complaint, odds are, they are not targeting some random dude at a convention for the fun of it.  

Is it possible that a complaint might be fabricated?  Yup, it's possible.  But, what's more likely?  That some woman, completely at random, singles out some dude for a harassment complaint at a gaming convention, or that some dude actually did say something inappropriate?  "Oh, well, all he's doing is telling dead baby jokes, just avoid him, he does that" is the wrong answer.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Quartz said:


> I've only read the first two pages, but let me ask what I hope is a pertinent question: is this a RPG thing or a male thing? Could you replace 'roleplaying' with any other male-dominated activity - for example 'football' - and get the same activities and issues?




Roleplaying only has one _unique_ form of harassment that I'm aware of, that being pervy DMs specifically targeting the characters of female players for gratuitous, detailed in-game sexual assaults. Rather damningly, this is one of the major complaints that we've heard repeated over and over.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Security personnel quality is HIGHLY variable.  So no, they're not necessarily going to be the best people to handle the situation.  But that IS the job..




When it comes to the kinds of harassment specific to our hobby, I don't think you're going to get a lot of value out of this attitude--though admittedly you seem prepared for that possibility.

But I do have an alternative for con-goers to consider: focus your efforts on getting the event and convention organizers on board, and on improving communication with (and between) these people. These are the people who are equipped to investigate in-play harassment, the people who are equipped to compile and share a list of known harassers, the people who security will heed when it comes time to boot the nincompoops out into the dark.

Again, I don't go to cons so my role in this fight is pretty limited; but I cringe when I imagine event security being tasked with sorting out our hobby's problems.


----------



## MechaPilot

Rygar said:


> I'll specifically state that so there is no confusion.  People,  not women,  not minorities,  people.  In fact,  from what I've seen the biggest abusers of "Harassment!" come from men characterizing anyone who disagrees with a woman as "Harassment" so that they can then white knight them.
> 
> I'll also point out,  as someone who spent 15 years working in a female dominated field,  harassment and sexual harassment are far from the sole domain of men.  I'll also definitively state from past experiences,  if you're male in a female dominated field you are screwed.  No one is going to stop it,  or even listen to you about it,  or if they do they're going to blame you for it because you're male.  Least of all the political activists.
> 
> To be very blunt,  anyone who enters this conversation thinking it's about women have no idea what harassment really is.  Harassment is something that happens to *people*.




It is certainly true that harassment, even sexual harassment, is perpetrated by and upon members of both genders.  I don't think that anyone could reasonably claim otherwise.  However, it is a reality that men are generally much more likely to be the harassers than women are, and women are generally much more likely to be the targets/victims of harassment than men are.

Also, if we go with the assumption that harassment is typically perpetrated by the majority members of a group (as you suggested was the case when you mentioned harassment in a female-dominated field), gaming is still dominated largely by men, and that makes harassment in gaming far more likely to be male against female in nature.

Therefore, while I agree with those who say that anti-harassment policies should really be applied to both genders (because they should be applied to everyone) I think that failing to realize or accept that most harassment is male against female in nature, particularly in male-dominated arenas like gaming, is either ignorance or willful blindness, and neither of those are conducive to crafting and implementing solid anti-harassment policies.


----------



## Hussar

I do have to admit some bafflement at the push back this seems to be getting.  We as a community have always rather prided ourselves on being a warm, welcoming community.  Doesn't matter what you are in real life, we're here to game and pretend to be elves.  Fantastic.  One big, welcoming community.

Only we aren't.  We're not welcoming.  We're an extremely closed community.  The numbers are pretty damning.  Overwhelmingly white male.  To the point where everyone else is pretty much a rounding error.  And we all know this.  This isn't a secret.  This isn't something buried in the history books.  We know this, right now, today.  Gaming is, and always has been, a very insular hobby.

And that needs to change.  Which means that steps have to be taken to remove those things that make our hobby insular.  And harassment of women is a big one.  No one should ever have to put up with the crap that we've seen in this thread and others.  That's ballocks.  Does anyone actually think that this sort of thing is acceptable?  Or that it isn't a problem?  I sure don't.

So, we need to have strong policies in place to protect those who have been routinely, habitually, and frequently attacked by our "big welcoming community".  And all the worries about misunderstandings or people abusing the system really don't help anything.  Nothing we will do will ever be foolproof.  If we could do that, we'd be a lot more famous than we are.  Nothing is 100%.  But, I know one thing, what we're doing now isn't working and hasn't been working for forty years.  So, sure, we might "silence 3e fans" by using harassment policies. But, y'know what?  That's a risk that has to be taken.  Because, embarrassing Bloggins by having a quiet word with him about a complaint over a misunderstanding is ten thousand times preferable to having some women be driven from the community.


----------



## Springheel

> Person makes a complaint saying Bloggins is making inappropriate comments.




Who gets to determine what is "inappropriate"?

That's the problem.  Without getting more information, you have no idea whether Bloggins said something worthy of sanction or not.




> then they simply inform him (quietly) that there has been a complaint and could he please watch what he says.
> 
> How is this a problem?




Because they have no way of knowing whether he actually NEEDS to "watch what he says".  It's also a problem because Bloggins may have absolutely no idea what he said that was inappropriate.  It's also possible that 99% of the people around him didn't find what he was saying inappropriate.  What does "watch what you say" mean in that context?

If the policy of the convention is to avoid saying anything, to anyone, that any other person could possibly object to, the only sure way to accomplish that is to say nothing at all.


----------



## Umbran

tomBitonti said:


> A few hundred people is a large enough size that having a plan to manage order is necessary.  There will be folks at the entrance, and I would expect the local police have been informed about the gathering and check in now and again.




I worked security at my local live-action game convention this year.  The con has, for years, been a couple hundred people.  It only just reached over 350 attendees, and the con runners only just decided to have its own security staff.

There is *nobody* at the door.  If you are holding an event in a hotel, you can't put people at the door, because there will be hotel guests that aren't part of your event that also have to come and go.  There are convention badges, and if you are caught playing a game without one, you'll be given a talking to and asked to go get your badge.  But, if a non-attendee walked over to the vendors, and wanted to buy something, they'd be perfectly welcome to.  I think a couple years ago, the vendors got some good sales off some girl's sports teams that were also staying at the hotel.  

As Hussar said, 300 people is a large wedding, and probably doesn't call for increased security in most cases.  

Heck, I also attend our local sci-fi convention, which is about 10 times the size of the gaming con above.  Again, there's nobody at the door (for the same reason - we are using a large hotel's conference spaces, and other guests cannot be kept out of the building.  There is convention security watching the doors of the Dealer's Room, the Art Show, and the Convention Suite, to see that folks who enter are convention attendees.  The Art Show doesn't allow you to bring bags in, in case someone wants to try to pocket something.

But, you do *not* have security wandering around giving an eyeball to each of the gaming tables all the time.



> The folks who run the facility would probably themselves have a couple of guards on hand.




I expect the larger hotel for the sci-fi convention has a rent-a-cop on hand.  And yes, the police know what's going on.  But there's no major presence at the gathering.  

Oh, and the woman I spoke about upthread was molested *by a member of convention security staff*.  So, yay for trusting security staff to handle harassment cases!

(The convention actually had a very clearly defined process for taking complaints (even against their own), where a security staffer (who was actually quite good and professional about it), walked through and asked questions and registered all the relevant information in forms, and it did get addressed after the convention.)



> In either case, I would expect a policy and a plan for managing disturbances.




For the 300 person convention, not really.  The plan in the past was, "tell one of the senior convention staff, who would make a judgement call, and/or call the cops if it is bad".  I do know that one year one party at the live action convention got a bit loud, other hotel attendees complained, and the cops came in to deal with it - it took them 20 minutes to show up, or something.  Now, that was for a noise complaint, but I don't think they'd have been hustling for a complaint that a woman had gotten groped, either.


----------



## Hussar

Did a quick Google search for harassment policies in Pathfinder society and saw this one from the Ontario Pathfinder Society:



> OPS “Fair Play” Policy
> 
> The Ontario Pathfinder Society is a community organization that works to create an inclusive and dynamic gaming environment for all its members. To further this end, we have a zero tolerance policy in regards to sexual-harassment, sexism, racism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination or bigotry.
> 
> Occasionally a scenario may contain adult or mildly provocative themes, which are peripheral to the overall game and are in no way to be exploited by players or game masters to create an environment that causes discomfort among participants.
> 
> If at any point a community member feels uncomfortable with either the thematic elements of a game or the behavior of others at the table, it is encouraged that they express their concerns to the table GM, the store-coordinator, or a venture officer. Likewise, players should be mindful of how their words and actions affect others at the table, even if they personally do not think them to be offensive.
> 
> Player fun and safety are paramount to the Ontario Pathfinder Society. Following the above guidelines, and a little common courtesy will help ensure the continued safety, inclusivity, and overall success of the community.




link

Now, this seems pretty much on the ball.  It is something that would need to be disseminated among members and brought to people's attention.  But, it seems like it has a pretty good handle on things.  Chain of complaint - GM, coordinator, venture officer.  And a warning to others to be respectful.

So long as this is actually acted on, it seems like they have a decent handle on things.


----------



## Springheel

> The numbers are pretty damning. Overwhelmingly white male. To the point where everyone else is pretty much a rounding error. And we all know this.




Where are these statistics from?


----------



## sunshadow21

Hussar said:


> Now, this seems pretty much on the ball.  It is something that would need to be disseminated among members and brought to people's attention.  But, it seems like it has a pretty good handle on things.  Chain of complaint - GM, coordinator, venture officer.  And a warning to others to be respectful.
> 
> So long as this is actually acted on, it seems like they have a decent handle on things.




And no mention of threatening to throw people, which was a rather large part of some of your earlier posts. That was my biggest problem with your earlier comments. Simply telling people to be respectful and mindful of those around them is a world away from some of your hypothetical situations that very consistently included the phrase, "or you will be asked to leave" or something similar. Formal warnings like that I would expect to primarily come from the venture officer and only after the lower level people have determined that someone that high in the chain of command needs to be made aware of the situation. 

Your earlier statements made it sound very much like you assumed the first responders, like the GMs, could and should routinely be throwing around warnings about being kicked out before there was any justification for that level of warning or threat. I fully agree that the best way to handle it is for the GM first, and since they probably saw it happen, they don't need to answer further questions or get more information. If, however, it gets beyond the point where the GM or staff member saw it directly, the idea that the complaintant doesn't need to provide any more information or that simply talking the supposed offender is the best solutuion doesn't always work. At a game store, it's still probably not that hard; it's a small space and mostly familiar faces, so even if one of the store workers didn't see it directly, they were generally aware enough of what was going on enough that they could respond pretty quickly without needing further information, and the person that needs to be talked to probably hasn't moved very far. 

Conventions are a lot harder in almost every regard. People move around a lot and the number of attendees quickly dwarves the available staff (whether they be volunteers running events, formal security, vendors, or the organizers keeping everything moving in the same direction), and your really nice idea goes out the window very fast. Individual events (like the collection of PFS tables in a single spot being watched by PFS volunteers) can keep that to a large degree because they are essentially contained units within the larger structure of the convention, and if the complaint is made in a timely fashion, your idea still works fantastically as long as both parties are actually involved in that event, and one of them wasn't just passing by. Also, the bystander issue doesn't really come into play at this level, so even the venture officer can generally act fairly quickly without that being a major concern. 

I suspect where most of the problems at cons occur is outside of these micro environments and come up far more often if there's a room of tables set up for open play or a room full of vendors with constant milling around or something similar where there is no clear GM or reporting structure right there to deal with problems. At that point, anyone making any kind of complaint is by necessity going to have to provide more details in order for the staffer to even begin to know where they need to look to find the offending person to talk to them. That is where you idea breaks down; the staffer has at that point a number of equally time consuming options to consider, as simply talking to the offender is not actually all that simple. They may find it best to make sure that the person with the complaint is away from the immediate problem and than inform the rest of the staff to be aware of the fact that the complaint was made and that they need to be reminding people that this is a public space. Especially if it seemed to be a complaint about a random comment, trying to track down the offender to give them a warning may very well not be worth it, especially at really large cons where it could take a long time to track down a single individual. If the complaint was from a specific area, the staffer could make sure that that area in particular gets the message, but much more than that could be very difficult to justify if there was no further details provided beyond "I felt harassed." 

Ultimately, your idea is the best solution, but it tends to have scaling issues. It makes perfect sense for a game store or a highly organized event/group, like PFS, to operate under those expectations, whether they be informal or a formal written code; forum moderators can usually also function at this level without too much difficulty. Convention staff in general are simply not going to be able to operate under those expectations. There is simply too much they have to look after at any given moment, and any action they take is going to take enough time they need enough details to know that it is indeed the right action. "I was offended" or "I was harassed" is not enough information for people at that level. The best solution at that point is for the community to step up and keep an eye out for when things are starting to get a bit hot and stop it before it occurs, because once it occurs, if the convention staff have to invoke their formal policies, the victim will likely have to answer as many questions as the accused. You can say err on the side of caution and respect for the victims all you want until you are in that kind of position where you really do have to determine who is right and how to address the problem with both sides expecting fair treatment. In real life scenarios, it is a lot harder for someone in that position of not having any kind of previous knowledge of the people or events involved to do anything simply and quickly or to visibly err on the side of caution by basically taking the accuser at their word with no further inquiries before taking action. After all, the person that you may have just falsely accused of harassment paid just as much as the accuser to be there, and they probably have just as many friends or supporters to back them up. 

At some point, the accuser has to be realistic in their expectations of what convention staff can actually do, even if most of the people on the staff would love to be able to do far more. Making a complaint to a DM about a comment that was just made in within a set group is very different from going up to a random convention staffer and complaining about something that happened in the randomness of the convention. What can be reasonably expected from all the parties involved is completely different, but too many people see a blanket policy like what you are proposing, and assume that it's implementation is going to be the same every time. Even if you personally don't expect that, enough people do that it can cause big headaches for convention staff, and often enough, even in smaller, more contained spaces like a game store.


----------



## Rygar

Springheel said:


> Who gets to determine what is "inappropriate"?
> 
> That's the problem.  Without getting more information, you have no idea whether Bloggins said something worthy of sanction or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they have no way of knowing whether he actually NEEDS to "watch what he says".  It's also a problem because Bloggins may have absolutely no idea what he said that was inappropriate.  It's also possible that 99% of the people around him didn't find what he was saying inappropriate.  What does "watch what you say" mean in that context?
> 
> If the policy of the convention is to avoid saying anything, to anyone, that any other person could possibly object to, the only sure way to accomplish that is to say nothing at all.




I think that's a very good question.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22839/

If we're going to go down this path then you're absolutely right,  communicating with anyone that isn't part of your inner circle of friends is likely to get you ejected when something like the items listed in the link are considered offensive.  Which means we can consider conventions and public gaming groups things of the past in the near future,  which will quickly result in the hobby itself dying.


----------



## psychophipps

Springheel said:


> Where are these statistics from?



Reality. They are from reality, except in areas like where I currently live where whites are the distinct minority.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hussar

I'm on my phone so I can't link but if you look at the WotC CoC pdf for Expeditions, it has very clear harassment policies that cover most issues.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Hussar said:


> I do have to admit some bafflement at the push back this seems to be getting.



The pushback contributes to the overall problem, too.

While watching some of the conversations on Facebook about the way the discussions of harassment are taking place here, at EN World, I have seen posts by women who stated that the reason they don't visit EN World anymore is because other users are pushing back against the very idea that there is even is harassment problem to begin with.   

Fortunately, EN World appears to have seen those same statements on FB.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Springheel said:


> Who gets to determine what is "inappropriate"?



Gosh, all sorts of people.

If you're a female in costume and a guy asks to take a picture with you, and he whispers in your ear that he'd like to grope you when the picture is taken, then you get to decide that's inappropriate. 

If you're a parent watching your son or daughter play D&D at a Con, and at the next table over a couple of guys waiting for their DM to show up decide to pass the time by having a loud conversation about which of the females in the room are hot, which are ugly and who they'd like to do it with, then you get to decide that's inappropriate.



Springheel said:


> That's the problem.  Without getting more information, you have no idea whether Bloggins said something worthy of sanction or not.



No, it's not, because most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate, and most staff at Cons already know that. 

This is the same level of intelligence required for a person to be able to put their shoes on the right feet, to navigate to and from work, to a Con, or to the store and back, and to otherwise interact with people the world over in a civil manner.

It's not that hard.

No, really. It's just not that hard.



Springheel said:


> It's also possible that 99% of the people around him didn't find what he was saying inappropriate.



So if there is a break in play, and the 99% decide that the topic of which movie on Netflix has the best sex scenes to masturbate to is going to be discussed, and if you're the 1% at the table then tough luck?

In other words, you're saying it's OK if the group decides it's OK? 

You probably don't know this, but the real creepers--as in the ones who make it their business to look for opportunities to isolate women and stalk them--are more successful in groups with the mindset of "If we're comfortable with it, then it shouldn't be anyone else's problem how we're behaving."



Springheel said:


> What does "watch what you say" mean in that context?



 It means, "Be mindful of others, because you are in public and you may not do _anything_ you want in public. If you feel otherwise, go home." 

Basically the same thing any decent parent would take the time to teach a child, starting at a very early age. 



Springheel said:


> If the policy of the convention is to avoid saying anything, to anyone, that any other person could possibly object to, the only sure way to accomplish that is to say nothing at all.



Con policies don't seem to require this. Regardless, if you're convinced that the best way to keep from being ejected from a convention is by not saying anything to anyone, then may I suggest you learn sign language? 

People seem pretty amenable to people who have to sign to communicate.

If that's still too much of a risk for you, then I have a bunker for sale in an undisclosed location that's internet and cable ready. Cheap, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Springheel said:


> Because they have no way of knowing whether he actually NEEDS to "watch what he says".  It's also a problem because Bloggins may have absolutely no idea what he said that was inappropriate.  It's also possible that 99% of the people around him didn't find what he was saying inappropriate.  What does "watch what you say" mean in that context?




Ms. Manners and other similar guardians of polite behavior would bemoan this as an example of how far society has slipped.  If someone can't make the assessment that certain language- be it bigoted, sexist, obscene, etc.- might be highly charged, thus unwelcome and unacceptable in a given context, then they may be in need of some instruction in the social graces.  That it is said only in jest isn't an excuse.

That it may only come as a result of getting publicly reprimanded, ejected or even arrested is just a sign of the times.

Ditto that for the 99% who are equally clueless or insensitive.


----------



## sunshadow21

Hussar said:


> I'm on my phone so I can't link but if you look at the WotC CoC pdf for Expeditions, it has very clear harassment policies that cover most issues.




Again, that's works because WotC is organized like PFS so as long as both parties are actually participants and the complaint is timely, that approach still works. Move out into the general convention space and very often different types of solutions are needed.


----------



## Taneras

sanishiver said:


> No, it's not, because most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate, and most staff at Cons already know that.






sanishiver said:


> So if there is a break in play, and the 99% decide that the topic of which movie on Netflix has the best sex scenes to masturbate to is going to be discussed, and if you're the 1% at the table then tough luck?




If _"most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate"_ then why did you come up with a hypothetical that shows the opposite just to counter one of Springheels points which essentially said _"most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate"_ when he mentioned his 99% example?

I think you want to paint a picture where most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate so you can trust the individual who claims that they're offended by certain statements because that individual would be part of the larger group of people who can determine what is and is not appropriate. But you also want the opposite, you want the individual to know better than the group who now no longer is capable of determining what is and is not appropriate, because it suits your argument now, just in case they actually disagree that what was said was actually offensive.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not going to deny that offensive things can be said and be minimized by a larger group of people wanting to protect each other.  That's perfectly plausible.  But, and there's no way around this, that's also an argument against the individual reporting offensive comments as their also part of that same group of people.  It's just as possible that they're also incapable of determining what is and is not appropriate just like the larger group may be incapable of doing in your Netflix example.

That's why this isn't simply as easy as just listening to the person claiming to be offended.


----------



## Springheel

> If that's still too much of a risk for you, then I have a bunker for  sale in an undisclosed location that's internet and cable ready. Cheap,  too.




​
Just to make a point, I find your sarcasm and condescending attitude to be "offensive" and "inappropriate".  I guess if we were at a con I could have you pulled aside and cautioned, and maybe even sent home if it happens again, without question?



sanishiver said:


> Gosh, all sorts of people.
> 
> 
> This is the same level of intelligence required for a person to be able to put their shoes on the right feet, to navigate to and from work, to a Con, or to the store and back, and to otherwise interact with people the world over in a civil manner.
> 
> It's not that hard.





You are ignoring the other examples that have been brought up in the thread already.  Tell me, if it's not so hard, which of the following statements are "inappropriate" and should be grounds for a warning and/or dismissal from a convention?

"You chant a prayer to the Lord of Evil and he sends his demons to aid you in your fight."

"I hope Trump goes all the way."

"People should be able to wear whatever costumes they want."

“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”


Unless your answer was "all of them", then you are not really on board with the "ask no questions" approach to dealing with offense.  




> No, it's not, because most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate




So if 99% of people around you did NOT find it inappropriate, and 1% did, then what do you tell that one percent who did?  Is your answer, "most people are capable of determining what is appropriate"?  

The entire problem with this "ask no questions" attitude is that "inappropriate" is ENTIRELY subjective.  Not only does it depend on the sensibilities of the individual, it also depends on context, on the setting, on the age range of the participants, and who the target of the behaviour was.   Is there anyone who can disagree with that fact?


----------



## Umbran

Springheel said:


> The entire problem with this "ask no questions" attitude is that "inappropriate" is ENTIRELY subjective.




There are these things called "acceptable social norms".   

As a member of society, it is *your own* responsibility to keep up on acceptable social norms.  That's right - the world is not responsible for giving people a comprehensive list of things that are okay to say, and things that are not.  Society, instead, assumes that your brain functions, and that you will use it (and, for those with actual issues with their mental function, we give leeway).  But, generally, failing to use your grey matter is your own fault, and you suffer the consequences.  

Will there be the occasional misstep or edge case or misunderstanding?  Yes.  We cannot have a strict set of rules that actually cover all cases.  Perfect justice is eternally denied us. 

But, this is also a bit of a boogeyman.  It isn't like men by the hordes are being caught up by edge cases, persecuted with minutae.  They're getting caught up by the fact that they cannot get it into their heads that they might actually be held accountable, like an *equal*.

As noted elsewhere - for those who are used to being top dogs, being treated like equals *feels* like oppression.  The folks who are asking for more protection from harassment aren't oppressing anyone.  They are asking for a basic level of respect that they historically have not had.  If "I must show respect for people" is too much for someone, or it seems arbitrary, dangerous, or burdensome to them, maybe they shouldn't be at a con in the first place.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Springheel said:


> Just to make a point, I find your sarcasm and condescending attitude to be "offensive" and "inappropriate".  I guess if we were at a con I could have you pulled aside and cautioned, and maybe even sent home if it happens again, without question?



You're mistaking mockery for condescension. But the question is still valid.

And yeah, you could go right ahead and do your worst. 

I wouldn't not be able to stop you from abusing the system we all rely on, because I can't control how a person will react when his or her character and integrity is called into question. 

I'd hope for a pause and reflect response, but some people prefer to lash out instead.


----------



## Umbran

sanishiver said:


> You're mistaking mockery for condescension. But the question is still valid.





Two points: 

1) There's a solid argument that mockery implies a certain level of condescension.  

2) Neither is really appropriate here.  Both generally have the effect of turning the discussion into a battle of egos, rather than a mature engagement of reason, and internet ego battles are typically not constructive.  So, please stop whichever you claim to be engaged in.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Understood.


----------



## Springheel

> There are these things called "acceptable social norms".  As a member of society, it is *your own* responsibility to keep up on acceptable social norms. That's right - the world is not responsible for giving people a comprehensive list of things that are okay to say, and things that are not.




As you're well aware, "acceptable social norms" are entirely subjective, depend heavily on context, and are not universally agreed-upon.  Which is why, if someone accused you of doing something "unacceptable", more information would be required to determine whether what you were doing was, in fact, wrong.

Is breastfeeding in public socially acceptable?  It's a fact that some people consider it "inappropriate" and will complain about it if it happens.  What do you think should happen in that case?  You work at a convention and someone comes up to you to tell you there is a person doing "inappropriate" things at a table. Do you take "immediate and swift action" and tell the mother to "watch what she does", without even knowing what the complaint is about?  Do you find out what the "inappropriate behaviour" was and then take swift action to warn the woman breastfeeding that she'll be removed from the convention if there are more complaints?  Or do you find out what the "inappropriate behaviour" was and then tell the complainer that breastfeeding in public is not against the rules and risk accusations of not taking her complaint seriously and "reducing the voice" of people who are offended?  I don't see any response there that doesn't have the potential to offend one of the parties involved.



> Will there be the occasional misstep or edge case or misunderstanding?   Yes.  We cannot have a strict set of rules that actually cover all  cases.  Perfect justice is eternally denied us.




​That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it?  No one here has said anything about perfect justice.  The current line of discussion is whether a policy of "ask no questions" is a good one or whether cons should try to reduce subjectivity as much as possible by implementing clear harassment policies.  Surprisingly, some people seem to be advocating the former over the latter, and I'm still trying to figure out why.




> And yeah, you could go right ahead and do your worst.
> 
> I wouldn't not be able to stop you from abusing the system




So if you agree that the "ask no questions" response can easily be abused, why are you advocating for it?


----------



## sunshadow21

Umbran said:


> There are these things called "acceptable social norms".
> 
> As a member of society, it is *your own* responsibility to keep up on acceptable social norms.  That's right - the world is not responsible for giving people a comprehensive list of things that are okay to say, and things that are not.  Society, instead, assumes that your brain functions, and that you will use it (and, for those with actual issues with their mental function, we give leeway).  But, generally, failing to use your grey matter is your own fault, and you suffer the consequences.
> 
> Will there be the occasional misstep or edge case or misunderstanding?  Yes.  We cannot have a strict set of rules that actually cover all cases.  Perfect justice is eternally denied us.
> 
> But, this is also a bit of a boogeyman.  It isn't like men by the hordes are being caught up by edge cases, persecuted with minutae.  They're getting caught up by the fact that they cannot get it into their heads that they might actually be held accountable, like an *equal*.
> 
> As noted elsewhere - for those who are used to being top dogs, being treated like equals *feels* like oppression.  The folks who are asking for more protection from harassment aren't oppressing anyone.  They are asking for a basic level of respect that they historically have not had.  If "I must show respect for people" is too much for someone, or it seems arbitrary, dangerous, or burdensome to them, maybe they shouldn't be at a con in the first place.



In the past, I would have had a far easier time agreeing with this. But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do. For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common, and in most of the discussions I have seen on this topic, people are all over the place in terms of what the acceptable definition is. That makes telling someone they need to watch what they are saying assuming they already know exactly what you are talking about much more problematic.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## MechaPilot

sunshadow21 said:


> In the past, I would have had a far easier time agreeing with this. But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do. For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common, and in most of the discussions I have seen on this topic, people are all over the place in terms of what the acceptable definition is. That makes telling someone they need to watch what they are saying assuming they already know exactly what you are talking about much more problematic.




I didn't read the link you're talking about, but I'm going to go ahead and say that just as there are people who are overly-offensive to others (the "I'll say whatever I want and if you get offended that's your problem" crowd), so are there people who claim offense unreasonably.

For example, some people took offense when the Joker-Harley slap photo was leaked from the set of Suicide Squad.  I saw some people claim that it was promoting violence against women.  However, and bear in mind that I am saying this as an old-school feminist ("old-school" meaning following the philosophy of gender equality under the law, not promoting special treatment for one over the other), I took no offense at all, nor did any of the old-school feminists that I know.  The Joker is a cool villain, but he's NOT a role model for anyone with any reasonable standards.


----------



## Taneras

sunshadow21 said:


> In the past, I would have had a far easier time agreeing with this. But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do. For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common, and in most of the discussions I have seen on this topic, people are all over the place in terms of what the acceptable definition is. That makes telling someone they need to watch what they are saying assuming they already know exactly what you are talking about much more problematic.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk




Don't forget the students needing therapy because someone wrote "Trump 2016" on a university's sidewalk, the Yale students who felt physically threatened because some Yale professors didn't think the university should be telling 20 something year olds how to dress on Halloween, what happened at Missouri University, the students at Brown University needing a "safe space" where cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of puppies were provided to calm them down because there was a discussion happening on campus grounds about whether or not rape on campus was worse than society at large,  Hampshire College a few years ago cancelling the band "Shokazoba" that their own student body invited because it was "too white", and the Cali teacher who threw out her high school student votes, at a predominantly Hispanic school mind you, because they had voted too many white people in.  Heck, there was just a video at a Cali University where two black students accosted a white student because he was wearing deadlocks.  I could go on...

I'm seeing a recent trend here and I think people are right in questioning how we should respond to complaints about offense and harassment because there are hypersensitive individuals that will make our community walk on egg shells because of their over-the-top delicate disposition.  Especially when what spurred on the conversation was an article penned that target demographics, link to blogs about the white male terrorist problem, equipped with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and calls that anything outside of a "sit, listen, believe, and ask how you can help" is unacceptable.  When I see that article, when I see calls to automatically and unquestioningly believe the person making the harassment claims, when I see the overall tone of this discussion I'm reminded of the same sorts of language and ideologies that caused the aforementioned hyper-sensitive behavior.  I think the vast majority of our community is fine with trying to prevent groping, rape/assault threats, crude and graphic jokes made in public, DM's having people's characters raped, (as well as other forms of harassment), etc.  But I think adding voices of caution so we don't end up going so far in that direction that we start to include such high standards of speech police that we can't even say the word "crazy" in front of people we don't know isn't a bad thing and shouldn't be characterized as the privileged cis-genderd heterosexual white males trying to hold onto their "top dog" status.  I'm going to be mindful and respectful, as I have always been, but not to the point where I'm walking on egg shells wondering if I'm going to get reported because I'm wearing deadlocks while white.  I'm speaking out because of what I've seen, outside of the tabletop community.  I've personally seen those sorts of people who need coloring books to adjust to ideas they disagree with ruin some of my other interests/hobbies and I don't want that happening here - so that's why I'm speaking out.


----------



## tomBitonti

Umbran said:


> I worked security at my local live-action game convention this year.  The con has, for years, been a couple hundred people.  It only just reached over 350 attendees, and the con runners only just decided to have its own security staff.




But, there *were* security staff already?  My point wasn't about increasing security, it was that events of a certain magnitude *are* having security, often built-in to the arrangement.



> There is *nobody* at the door.  If you are holding an event in a hotel, you can't put people at the door, because there will be hotel guests that aren't part of your event that also have to come and go.  There are convention badges, and if you are caught playing a game without one, you'll be given a talking to and asked to go get your badge.  But, if a non-attendee walked over to the vendors, and wanted to buy something, they'd be perfectly welcome to.  I think a couple years ago, the vendors got some good sales off some girl's sports teams that were also staying at the hotel.






> As Hussar said, 300 people is a large wedding, and probably doesn't call for increased security in most cases.




Again, I didn't posit *increased* security.  As an additional note, hiring extra security for a wedding is a thing that is done.  And apparently, some localities require a certain level of security if alcohol is being served (Pennsylvania is the locate I saw reference to.)



> Heck, I also attend our local sci-fi convention, which is about 10 times the size of the gaming con above.  Again, there's nobody at the door (for the same reason - we are using a large hotel's conference spaces, and other guests cannot be kept out of the building.  There is convention security watching the doors of the Dealer's Room, the Art Show, and the Convention Suite, to see that folks who enter are convention attendees.  The Art Show doesn't allow you to bring bags in, in case someone wants to try to pocket something.




That sounds like security already in place and following a security plan.



> But, you do *not* have security wandering around giving an eyeball to each of the gaming tables all the time.




I didn't recommend this.  Although, for example, at weddings, security is advised to blend in so as to not interrupt the festivity.  Security will have a visible presence based on the value of that presence, say, to dissuade wrong-doing or to provide a feeling of security.  I think that police show up at bars on occasion very specifically to be noticed, whereas at weddings a guard is supposed to blend in and will wear a tux (if appropriate) and keep their badge inside their jacket.



> I expect the larger hotel for the sci-fi convention has a rent-a-cop on hand.  And yes, the police know what's going on.  But there's no major presence at the gathering.
> 
> Oh, and the woman I spoke about upthread was molested *by a member of convention security staff*.  So, yay for trusting security staff to handle harassment cases!




Partly, that is a point to be addressed, in that conventions should make more of an effort to hire quality staff.  (I saw this as a point re: wedding security, in which a ham-fisted guard can cause a lot of problems.)  But corrupt security seems to be a bigger scope than we can address. 



> (The convention actually had a very clearly defined process for taking complaints (even against their own), where a security staffer (who was actually quite good and professional about it), walked through and asked questions and registered all the relevant information in forms, and it did get addressed after the convention.)




That sounds ideal.  One of my takes from the current thread is that making this type of process the norm should be a goal of the community, and one which is addressable by the community.



> For the 300 person convention, not really.  The plan in the past was, "tell one of the senior convention staff, who would make a judgement call, and/or call the cops if it is bad".  I do know that one year one party at the live action convention got a bit loud, other hotel attendees complained, and the cops came in to deal with it - it took them 20 minutes to show up, or something.  Now, that was for a noise complaint, but I don't think they'd have been hustling for a complaint that a woman had gotten groped, either.




That seems almost adequate.  I can appreciate resource limits for small gatherings.  But, those who are running the gathering do have a responsibility here, and (I think) more of an effort seems called for.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Taneras said:


> If _"most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate"_ then why did you come up with a hypothetical that shows the opposite...?



I did no such thing.

After all, Springheel said, "99% of the people around him." _Around him_. As in, a group.

A group of people at a gaming table are not "most people", because there are a whole hell of a lot of people in the world. 

The phrase "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" is a statement describing all people in general terms.

The phrase also implies some people do not know what is and is not appropriate.

What are some examples of people who don't know what's appropriate?

The example of a man saying something sexual to a woman in costume, the example of a table group having a loud conversation about looks and sex next to minors and their parents, and the example of a table group discussing sex scenes on Netflix.

These are all examples of people, whether individually _or in groups_, that behaved inappropriately in a public place. (Those examples were drawn from accounts of bad experiences at conventions, by the way.)


----------



## Taneras

sanishiver said:


> I did no such thing.
> 
> After all, Springheel said, "99% of the people around him." _Around him_. As in, a group.
> 
> A group of people at a gaming table are not "most people", because there are a whole hell of a lot of people in the world.
> 
> The phrase "most people are capable of determining what is and is not appropriate" is a statement describing all people in general terms.
> 
> The phrase also implies some people do not know what is and is not appropriate.
> 
> What are some examples of people who don't know what's appropriate?
> 
> The example of a man saying something something sexual to a woman in costume, the example of a table group having a loud conversation about looks and sex next to minors and their parents, and the example of a table group discussing sex scenes on Netflix.
> 
> These are all examples of people, whether individually _or in groups_, that behaved inappropriately in a public place. (Those examples were drawn from accounts of bad experiences at conventions, by the way.)




So, despite the overall population being able to determine what is and what is not appropriate, it just so happened that some of the ones who can't make that determination were all sitting at the same table when inappropriate language was repeated - that's your example.

Going off of that it seems much more likely that a table wouldn't be comprised of individuals who aren't able to determine what is and what is not appropriate since they'd be a minority in a world where most people could in fact determine appropriate/inappropriate and that the 99% (or whatever large percentage) would most likely be right with regards to how they viewed the language in question.  The person making the complaint (the low percentage) would likely be wrong with their judgement on whether or not the language in question was appropriate because its more likely that because their outnumbered that they're in the minority of people who are not capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate speech.

No matter how you cut it, your statement that most people are capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate behavior is at odds with your example of the 99% determining what is and what isn't appropriate.


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> So, despite the overall population being able to determine what is and what is not appropriate, it just so happened that some of the ones who can't make that determination were all sitting at the same table when inappropriate language was repeated - that's your example.
> 
> Going off of that it seems much more likely that a table wouldn't be comprised of individuals who aren't able to determine what is and what is not appropriate since they'd be a minority in a world where most people could in fact determine appropriate/inappropriate and that the 99% (or whatever large percentage) would most likely be right and the person making the complaint (the low percentage) actually be the person who isn't able to determine appropriate/inappropriate and has incorrectly labeled appropriate speech inappropriate.
> 
> No matter how you cut it, your statement that most people are capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate behavior is at odds with your example of the 99% determining what is and what isn't appropriate.




I think you're forgetting that many gamers are socially awkward.  Odds are that people who are predominantly socially awkward are more likely to have a larger population of people who would be inappropriate.


----------



## Umbran

sunshadow21 said:


> But after reading the link that says anything that promoting meritocracy is potentially offensive, I have say that there's only so much I can do.




This thread is, ultimately, about Harassment in *GAMING*.  If someone is making the argument that promoting meritocracy in *GAMING* is an issue... I don't know what to tell you.  If you're going to say, "I'm sorry, lady but you're not a good enough player for my table, and the fact that nobody will give you a fair shot to become good enough is not my problem," then yes, I'm going to look at you funny, and walk away from your table.  If you give my wife grief for being a "fake geek girl" (which, at its heart, is a meritocracy argument), you are going to get quite an earful about being kind of a jerk.  




> For a common definition to work, it genuinely has to common




No, it merely needs to be accessible.  If you are going into an environment, it is contingent upon you to find out and *think* about what's appropriate.  In this case, the environment in question is gaming stores, conventions, and individual gaming tables.  

And most of this, again, is not about "meritocracy". It is about women getting their butts grabbed and looked down on.


----------



## Taneras

MechaPilot said:


> I think you're forgetting that many gamers are socially awkward.  Odds are that people who are predominantly socially awkward are more likely to have a larger population of people who would be inappropriate.




That cuts both ways, perhaps the person making the claim is also socially awkward and reported a harmless comment as being harassment or having causing great offense.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hussar said:


> I do have to admit some bafflement at the push back this seems to be getting.  We as a community have always rather prided ourselves on being a warm, welcoming community.  Doesn't matter what you are in real life, we're here to game and pretend to be elves.  Fantastic.  One big, welcoming community.
> 
> Only we aren't.  We're not welcoming.  We're an extremely closed community.  The numbers are pretty damning.  Overwhelmingly white male.  To the point where everyone else is pretty much a rounding error.  And we all know this.  This isn't a secret.  This isn't something buried in the history books.  We know this, right now, today.  Gaming is, and always has been, a very insular hobby.
> 
> And that needs to change.  Which means that steps have to be taken to remove those things that make our hobby insular.  And harassment of women is a big one.  No one should ever have to put up with the crap that we've seen in this thread and others.  That's ballocks.  Does anyone actually think that this sort of thing is acceptable?  Or that it isn't a problem?  I sure don't.
> 
> So, we need to have strong policies in place to protect those who have been routinely, habitually, and frequently attacked by our "big welcoming community".  And all the worries about misunderstandings or people abusing the system really don't help anything.  Nothing we will do will ever be foolproof.  If we could do that, we'd be a lot more famous than we are.  Nothing is 100%.  But, I know one thing, what we're doing now isn't working and hasn't been working for forty years.  So, sure, we might "silence 3e fans" by using harassment policies. But, y'know what?  That's a risk that has to be taken.  Because, embarrassing Bloggins by having a quiet word with him about a complaint over a misunderstanding is ten thousand times preferable to having some women be driven from the community.




I'm sorry that that comes across.  ENWorld, for one, has a strong anti-harassment policy which I applaud.  And there are lots of folks around with strong anti-harassment and anti-discrimination views.

To speak from my own perspective, I don't have a particular disagreement with the _theme_ of the initial linked article.  But, the article has strong faults, to which one can validly respond:

* The mixing of clearly illegal behavior (being slipped a roofie and being raped) with simple harassment (the comment about the aboriginal woman).  These two examples are in very difference spaces.  I have to counteract this association, and must remark on it if I am to have an open conversation regarding the article.  This mixing that is done by the article is a big problem in that it can cause the emotional reaction to the greater problem (rape) to be put in place for lesser (racist comments).

*) I have a problem with the "deal with this now, and on my terms" sense which I strongly got from the article.  The thing is, I've read about violence against women and have had an active view towards working against it for most of my life (nearly 40 years out of 50 now), as I first begin reading about the subject when I was a tweener.  Information about violence against woman is readily available, and lots of folks who have an eye to such matters will be versed in it.

*) What I did find to be a valid take-away was the question of to what extent violence against woman, and generally sexual or sexist harassment is a problem in gaming communities, either in that the community had a greater than problem than is prevalent in society as a whole, or has a problem of a lack of awareness of the problem, or has a problem of taking too few steps to actively correct the problem.  The article presents as conclusions that all of these problems are present. But, I think the community is correct to take a look a step back and work to an answer itself.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## MechaPilot

Taneras said:


> That cuts both ways, perhaps the person making the claim is also socially awkward and reported a harmless comment as being harassment or having causing great offense.




Perhaps.  Or perhaps not.  Again, I was simply reminding you that you can't really assume that a population of gamers is representative of the broader social whole given that many gamers possess social awkwardness issues.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

I feel like I should provide a little bit off insight since KeyCon takes place in Winnipeg, where I live and I go every year.  That is the convention listed in the original article.

The event in question took place many years ago even though it's written like it happened recently.  We don't know how many years because the con staff couldn't find her name listed as ever having attended the convention.  Apparently, she snuck into the convention using someone else's badge since she wanted to remain anonymous(the con lets you put any name you want on your badge, so not entirely sure about that answer).  She told them that she didn't want to give them any more information, even which year she attended the convention and all questions should go to her lawyer.  I know the con staff ran into a dead end in their investigation since they had nearly no information to go on and they found out that she was drugged at the convention (but by one of her friends that she brought with her) and then they took her off site to do the actual assault.

One of the con staff after the incident took it upon themselves to revamp the convention harassment rules and they put fairly strict anti-harassment rules into effect.  But it should be noted that KeyCon is a party convention.  It's like 2 conventions in one:  After 6 pm or so, most people there are drinking...heavily.  They have a con suite that gives out free alcohol.  They have sexual panels like the "fandom purity test" and they have both a normal costume contest and in the past, a "mature costume contest" that start around 11 pm.  Earlier in the day, it is filled with panels on Doctor Who and the like.  The convention is primarily a science fiction/fantasy convention with a little bit of gaming happening.  But the community that goes to KeyCon has a large crossover with some mature sexual conventions in the city.  The convention is pretty much always balancing on a razor's edge of trying to give people what they want (mature content and alcohol, mostly) and trying to avoid anyone going over the line.

I also know that what wasn't listed in the article is that she brought a Human Rights Tribunal claim against her boss at the gaming store and won.  I know it was around $7000.  The decision information can be found here: http://www.manitobahumanrights.ca/publications/legal/garland.pdf


----------



## Dire Bare

Wow. Like some others have pointed out, I'm surprised at the pushback in this thread (and elsewhere) regarding reducing harassment in gaming. It's a strange hill to die on, asserting that harassment in gaming isn't a serious issue and that harassment policies might catch too many innocent white male gamers in their traps.

Regarding what is and what isn't appropriate in a public space, think back to public school. I teach middle school science, and a lot of my day is taken up teaching kids what is and what isn't appropriate to say in school. They repeat things they hear their parents say at home, they repeat things they hear in movies and TV, heck, they repeat things from all over the place! And I have to teach them, just because your parents seem okay with this language in your home, or just because you heard this language on TV or in the movies, that DOES NOT make it okay here in school, which is a training ground for existing in society, in public spaces.

The convention harassment policies we've looked at in this thread seem very close to harassment policies that most public schools have, and that shouldn't be surprising.

So, if your old public school teacher would reprimand you for saying it, don't say it in any public spaces at all, including gaming conventions. That's a good rule of thumb.


----------



## Taneras

Dire Bare said:


> It's a strange hill to die on, asserting that harassment in gaming isn't a serious issue and that harassment policies might catch too many innocent white male gamers in their traps.




Who made that claim?


----------



## Dire Bare

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I feel like I should provide a little bit off insight since KeyCon takes place in Winnipeg, where I live and I go every year.  That is the convention listed in the original article.
> 
> The event in question took place many years ago even though it's written like it happened recently.  We don't know how many years because the con staff couldn't find her name listed as ever having attended the convention.  Apparently, she snuck into the convention using someone else's badge since she wanted to remain anonymous(the con lets you put any name you want on your badge, so not entirely sure about that answer).  She told them that she didn't want to give them any more information, even which year she attended the convention and all questions should go to her lawyer.  I know the con staff ran into a dead end in their investigation since they had nearly no information to go on and they found out that she was drugged at the convention (but by one of her friends that she brought with her) and then they took her off site to do the actual assault.
> 
> One of the con staff after the incident took it upon themselves to revamp the convention harassment rules and they put fairly strict anti-harassment rules into effect.  But it should be noted that KeyCon is a party convention.  It's like 2 conventions in one:  After 6 pm or so, most people there are drinking...heavily.  They have a con suite that gives out free alcohol.  They have sexual panels like the "fandom purity test" and they have both a normal costume contest and in the past, a "mature costume contest" that start around 11 pm.  Earlier in the day, it is filled with panels on Doctor Who and the like.  The convention is primarily a science fiction/fantasy convention with a little bit of gaming happening.  But the community that goes to KeyCon has a large crossover with some mature sexual conventions in the city.  The convention is pretty much always balancing on a razor's edge of trying to give people what they want (mature content and alcohol, mostly) and trying to avoid anyone going over the line.
> 
> I also know that what wasn't listed in the article is that she brought a Human Rights Tribunal claim against her boss at the gaming store and won.  I know it was around $7000.  The decision information can be found here: http://www.manitobahumanrights.ca/publications/legal/garland.pdf




From my perspective from reading this thread, this sounds like a "he said, she said" situation where one party claims one thing and the other party claims the other. While this expands upon the whole problem of harassment is a difficult thing to prove, it also doesn't really matter (to me) in context of this thread, as the situation as originally explained is _totally believable_ and most certainly _does happen_ at conventions across the country.

However, if I'm reading both sides correctly, harassment most certainly did occur at this convention. If it's true that the woman snuck into the convention known for sexual content, was harassed and assaulted by someone from her own group, and later refused to cooperate fully with convention staff . . . doesn't really change the base fact that she was assaulted at this convention. To imply that this woman was somehow at least partially at fault for what happened to her is _blaming the victim_, which is not cool.

If the convention staff did their best to resolve the situation, and even crafted a stronger harassment policy as a result, THAT'S AWESOME! While it's certainly possible the victim made some bad choices before, during, and after the incidents, it seems like what should have happened did happen.

Last point, whoah! You describe a convention I would likely never attend or even worse be a part of the event staff. Mixing standard convention activities with a later "adult" convention, plus throwing free booze into the mix . . . yeah, that's asking for some not-good things to happen with lawsuits to follow. Perhaps the conventions new harassment policy takes this into account, but the convention staff should be going out of their way to clearly demarcate the (perhaps) "family-friendly" daytime convention activities from the more racy "adult" nighttime convention activities. It should be in writing, on the website, on the convention program, on the posters on the walls, on event door tags . . . . there should be no doubt in anyone's mind what kind of a room you're stepping into at this convention. But, it's doable! I'm sure that conventions that solely cater to "adult" activities have crafted (and enforced) strong anti-harassment policies, so a gaming convention that caters to a more adult crowd should be able to do so also.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Umbran said:


> This thread is, ultimately, about Harassment in *GAMING*.  If someone is making the argument that promoting meritocracy in *GAMING* is an issue... I don't know what to tell you.  If you're going to say, "I'm sorry, lady but you're not a good enough player for my table, and the fact that nobody will give you a fair shot to become good enough is not my problem," then yes, I'm going to look at you funny, and walk away from your table.  If you give my wife grief for being a "fake geek girl" (which, at its heart, is a meritocracy argument), you are going to get quite an earful about being kind of a jerk.



Though, I've certainly not allowed people at my table because they weren't good enough roleplayers.  Some of them have been women.  It wasn't my problems if anyone else didn't want them at their table either.  I just wanted to get the best player at my own table since quality of players can make or break a game.  And some people just aren't fun to be around.  Especially if they are the kind of people that find everything offensive.


----------



## Dire Bare

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Though, I've certainly not allowed people at my table because they weren't good enough roleplayers.  Some of them have been women.  It wasn't my problems if anyone else didn't want them at their table either.  I just wanted to get the best player at my own table since quality of players can make or break a game.  And some people just aren't fun to be around.  Especially if they are the kind of people that find everything offensive.




It's subjective, depending on who you're blocking and why, and what kind of space we're talking about.

If you blocked somebody from your personal gaming group, whether you play at home or at a gaming store (or otherwise equally public space), that's your prerogative and isn't necessarily harassing, although it certainly can be. I could only judge that kind of decision if I was a direct witness, or based on your own description.

Although, if you outright admitted that you won't allow "those types of people" at your table, that's a red flag. Not allowing folks "not good" at role-playing? What does that even mean? How do you tell somebody that they are just not good enough at roleplaying to stay at your table? Now, if you really are just asking folks that share a similar style to you to game with you in your private games, that's fine I suppose . . . but the language you use sounds suspect to me.

If you are blocking folks from your table at a gaming convention, in an open-gaming section . . . that would be harassing and if I were the event organizer, that would be your last table to GM at.


----------



## Umbran

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Though, I've certainly not allowed people at my table because they weren't good enough roleplayers.  Some of them have been women.  It wasn't my problems if anyone else didn't want them at their table either.  I just wanted to get the best player at my own table since quality of players can make or break a game.  And some people just aren't fun to be around.  Especially if they are the kind of people that find everything offensive.




"You are personally obnoxious," is not a meritocracy argument.  That one I allow for.

"As a roleplayer, you have a different focus from the rest of the group," is also fine.  That's a style issue, not a merit issue.  So, the "you are only interested in combat, and we are all about social interaction" case is covered here.

"Not a good enough roleplayer," is, to my mind, so vague and ill-defined as to not be useful*, and I will, in fact, look at you funny for it.  Here I am, looking at you funny: 



*Really, what does that even mean?  Do you have a skills test that renders some measure of roleplaying you put people through, or something?  How does "I don't like how you do it" become "You are not good at it"?   As if *you* know what is good and bad, in terms of personal merit?  Really?


----------



## sunshadow21

> And most of this, again, is not about "meritocracy". It is about women getting their butts grabbed and looked down on.




And you completely missed the point of the post. There has been very little discussion on the morality of women getting groped because the base definition is pretty clear cut. But when we as a society are to a point that we can't openly discuss something as basic as who best qualifies for a particular job, something even more personal like what constitutes "being put down" is going to near impossible to define sufficiently to allow the accessibility you think everyone already has. If the half dozen people active in this thread n your side can't tell agree on where to put the line aside from all or nothing, how can you expect me to know what is safe to say and what isn't when I'm surrounded by hundreds of strangers? It's an impossible standard for anyone and I see no point in pursuing it to the degree that you think I am obligated to.


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Dire Bare said:


> However, if I'm reading both sides correctly, harassment most certainly did occur at this convention. If it's true that the woman snuck into the convention known for sexual content, was harassed and assaulted by someone from her own group, and later refused to cooperate fully with convention staff . . . doesn't really change the base fact that she was assaulted at this convention. To imply that this woman was somehow at least partially at fault for what happened to her is _blaming the victim_, which is not cool.



And it's not my intention to blame anyone.  I wasn't there (well, I was likely at the convention, since I've gone every year for the last 20, but I wasn't in that room), so I don't know the circumstances of what happened.  I don't know her.  At least, I don't recognize her picture when someone showed it to me and I was told her name and don't recognize that either.  I'm just relating what I've heard from some of the people involved.  When I asked someone who is more involved in the planning of the convention, that's pretty much the answer they gave me.  I figured since it was being discussed, I'd pass it along.



Dire Bare said:


> Last point, whoah! You describe a convention I would likely never attend or even worse be a part of the event staff. Mixing standard convention activities with a later "adult" convention, plus throwing free booze into the mix . . . yeah, that's asking for some not-good things to happen with lawsuits to follow. Perhaps the conventions new harassment policy takes this into account, but the convention staff should be going out of their way to clearly demarcate the (perhaps) "family-friendly" daytime convention activities from the more racy "adult" nighttime convention activities. It should be in writing, on the website, on the convention program, on the posters on the walls, on event door tags . . . . there should be no doubt in anyone's mind what kind of a room you're stepping into at this convention. But, it's doable! I'm sure that conventions that solely cater to "adult" activities have crafted (and enforced) strong anti-harassment policies, so a gaming convention that caters to a more adult crowd should be able to do so also.



It's always been an...interesting convention.  The adult part of the convention wasn't intended that I can tell.  It was more of an accidental offshoot over the years.  It was a sci-fi/fantasy convention where an entire floor of the convention was taken up by "Con Suites".  From what I've been told this isn't a common feature at cons so some people may not have heard of it.  But basically, they are rooms in a theme like "pirate room" or "space balls room" where people can just sit down, relax, enjoy some food and drink and soak in the atmosphere while socializing with other people (and likely discussing your favor books or something).

Since the beginning, the con suites have been very popular.  To the point where there is a group of people who come to the convention and don't actually attend any panels at all.  They hang out on the floor of con suites with their friends drinking and talking all weekend long.  This eventually grew into more and more racy "nighttime activities" that almost entirely took place in the con suites.  Since the con suites weren't officially put on by the convention(they are literally hotel rooms that people decorated and opened the door to so anyone can walk in), they were left to their own devices for a long time.  They were considered a private space run by the owners of the room.

Eventually the convention had to consider them officially part of the con and everything that went with that.  But they still tried to keep their distance from meddling in them.  Still, there were some events planned that lasted a number of years that were probably horribly inappropriate that were overlooked because no one complained about them.  At least one that I'm aware of was officially disbanded by the con and the owners of the suite told to never do it again.

But as more and more of the people who attended the con only do so to go to the con suites and hang out with their friends while drinking (and attend the party with a DJ on Saturday night), the con started getting some panels like the "fandom purity test" where everyone just takes a purity test to see who is the dirtiest so they can laugh about it afterward.  It's fairly common knowledge that a lot of people use the convention to meet people for sex.  I've heard quite a few people repeat "What happens at KeyCon stays at KeyCon" and I know at least one couple who is monogamous but they are allowed to cheat while at KeyCon.  I know that most people know that the term "private con" means the convention that continues in the hotel rooms that aren't part of the con.

I've always felt a little bit uncomfortable at the convention while on the Con Suite floor.  I try to avoid going up there now, since it is an entirely different floor than the rest of the convention.  I hang out in the gaming room all weekend long where we barely notice the other convention happening, except a periodic train of really drunk people who do a conga line through the gaming room and leave.

But there isn't enough notice about the adult stuff at the con.  I wasn't aware it existed for the first 3 years I went.  The convention likes to keep it very, very quiet.  Basically they stick with their "Some private stuff might happen late at night.  Just don't harass anyone or do anything that people don't consent to." policy.  It's only in the last couple of years that the "Fandom Purity Test" and "Adult Writing Advice" panels are listed on the schedule as events.  Before they just happened quietly in a room somewhere and word of mouth told people where they were.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Taneras said:


> I could go on...



It's safe to say that the sort of hyper-liberalism run amok that is making strange places of American and British universities is not at the core of the drive to bring awareness to the issue of harassment and abuse of women (and others)* in gaming*. 

Such abuse is part of a much larger problem. One that predates the trends you are observing by a couple thousand years, at least.  



Taneras said:


> I'm seeing a recent trend here and I think people are right in questioning how we should respond to complaints about offense and harassment because there are hypersensitive individuals that will make our community walk on egg shells because of their over-the-top delicate disposition.



Be careful here. And please try very, _very_ hard to be honest about what trends you're seeing, because the women who are speaking out about their experiences of harassment at Cons and game stores are absolutely not being "over the top."

Women are bringing the issue up. Women are experiencing the problem. These are trends. 

But these are not the same trends you are concerned about. You're talking about a problem you have with behavior that is taking place largely outside of gaming. 

By repeatedly talking about what is happening outside of gaming, you're shifting the focus away from the trends everyone else is trying to talk about and raise awareness of. 

For a person to recognize there is a problem in gaming that is largely being perpetrated by white males does not mean a person ascribes to a hyper-liberal ideology, or that the person buys into the idea behind safe spaces and rigger warnings. 

Look, when people call for white male gamers to listen to what women are saying, to understand them and to work to fix the problems they are experiencing, it's not pushing an ideology.

Such calls are being made because women in gaming are not always being treated with the basic minimum level of respect that is otherwise afforded to people in public. 

It's about human decency. Not about ideology.



Taneras said:


> I think the vast majority of our community is fine with trying to prevent groping, rape/assault threats, crude and graphic jokes made in public, DM's having people's characters raped, (as well as other forms of harassment), etc.



Given that you just joined this month, I'm going to assume you're relying on people's good intentions, and their understanding of how to behave in general, as opposed to actual knowledge of what EN World users are like based on repeated, regular interactions with them over time.

Which begs the question why you seem to have a problem with the idea that, in general, most people know how to figure out what is and is not appropriate. 



Taneras said:


> But I think adding voices of caution so we don't end up going so far in that direction that we start to include such high standards of speech police that we can't even say the word "crazy" in front of people we don't know isn't a bad thing and shouldn't be characterized as the privileged cis-genderd heterosexual white males trying to hold onto their "top dog" status.



"Don't let the crazy liberals ruin gaming for everyone!" is a separate discussion from the topic of this thread. 



Taneras said:


> I'm going to be mindful and respectful, as I have always been...(snip)



That's pretty much what people are asking for. More mindfulness, more respectfulness, and (therefore) more awareness of others. 

Describing it as anything more than that is to mischaracterize what's being discussed here.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Taneras said:


> So, despite the overall population being able to determine what is and what is not appropriate, it just so happened that some of the ones who can't make that determination were all sitting at the same table when inappropriate language was repeated - that's your example.



 Careful now. The phrase "it just so happened" suggests the scenario I outlined is either contrived, or otherwise pretty rare. 

Neither of which are true. 



Taneras said:


> No matter how you cut it, your statement that most people are capable of determining appropriate and inappropriate behavior is at odds with your example of the 99% determining what is and what isn't appropriate.



Not at all. 

You're claiming that my argument leads to a conclusion that is different than what I am saying. 

Your counter argument seems to be, "Given that most people know what is appropriate behavior in public, then the majority (i.e., the 99%) of any group of people sitting at a gaming table can determine what is appropriate. Therefore, a complaint from the minority of inappropriate behavior is very likely wrong."

Then you went on to describe why your argument is true, using logic that I had a hard time following, instead of addressing the line by line breakdown of my reasoning. 

If you are going to disagree, then please address my reasoning.


----------



## Springheel

> And most of this, again, is not about "meritocracy". It is about women getting their butts grabbed and looked down on.





It's certainly not about "women getting their butts grabbed". Not a single person in this thread has defended that kind of behaviour.

The discussion, at least for the last several pages, is whether it's appropriate to "ask no questions" when someone says they have been offended or harrassed. Specific example after specific example has been put forward to demonstrate how this might be a problem, yet for some reason people advocating that position keep avoiding the examples.


----------



## Umbran

sunshadow21 said:


> And you completely missed the point of the post.




No.  I am saying the post is overstated, and largely irrelevant to the current real-world needs.  It is quibbling over hypothetical possible scenarios of what might happen, and redirects from the actual issues being reported.  The post has missed the point of the thread, really.

And this is common - it is rather like the "not all men" argument, trying to focus on the balance to protect the innocent men who have done no harm, as if they're the important issue at hand.  



> There has been very little discussion on the morality of women getting groped because the base definition is pretty clear cut.




You say that, but it happens pretty regularly.  I had to report such an issue myself at my local sci-fi con in January.  There's a large chunk of people who do not agree with you on the morality of groping - they think it is okay for them to do it!  Worry about those hose-heads first, and worry about agreeing on hiring practices later.  There's a whole lot of supposedly clear-cut stuff that needs to be worked on.  



> But when we as a society are to a point that we can't openly discuss something as basic as who best qualifies for a particular job, something even more personal like what constitutes "being put down" is going to near impossible to define sufficiently to allow the accessibility you think everyone already has.




Again, no.  As I have noted, there is no perfection.  But there *is* sufficiency.  You seem to suggest that there's going to be this vast minefield of things that are going to get you keel-hauled for doing, and that's just not true.  



> If the half dozen people active in this thread n your side can't tell agree on where to put the line aside from all or nothing, how can you expect me to know what is safe to say and what isn't when I'm surrounded by hundreds of strangers? It's an impossible standard for anyone and I see no point in pursuing it to the degree that you think I am obligated to.




With respect - some folks in this discussion may not realize it, but they are asking for 100% reliable rules for social interaction - they want to be able to enter an interaction with 100% certainty that either they won't offer offense, or won't be offended (or that any offense they see will with 100% certainty be dealt with).  That's making perfect the enemy of good, and isn't realistic.  And it isn't even required.

We do not need to work to the goal of nobody ever having something they don't like in front of them.  We merely need to bring the number of issues down to the point where they are not oppressive or scary.  And, no, we don't need to agree on the details of meritocracy in hiring to reach that.


----------



## billd91

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's always been an...interesting convention.  The adult part of the convention wasn't intended that I can tell.  It was more of an accidental offshoot over the years.  It was a sci-fi/fantasy convention where an entire floor of the convention was taken up by "Con Suites".  From what I've been told this isn't a common feature at cons so some people may not have heard of it.  But basically, they are rooms in a theme like "pirate room" or "space balls room" where people can just sit down, relax, enjoy some food and drink and soak in the atmosphere while socializing with other people (and likely discussing your favor books or something).




I think this is more common in small conventions than you realize. There are at least 3 conventions a year in Madison, Wisconsin alone that feature fairly open parties run in individual rooms outside of the regular programming - and this includes the fairly tough-minded feminist SF literary convention WisCon. I don't think this is just because we drink a lot in Wisconsin because they're prominent features of other well-known and long-running midwestern conventions like MiniCon and CapriCon.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

sanishiver said:


> That's pretty much what people are asking for. More mindfulness, more respectfulness, and (therefore) more awareness of others.
> 
> Describing it as anything more than that is to mischaracterize what's being discussed here.




I think the problem here is that most people believe they are already being mindful. I would never say anything in public that I thought would overly offend someone. Some amount of offense is always going to happen since everyone has different comfort levels. If I say something that offends you, I expect you to point that out to me so I know your tolerance level is lower than most and I can try to be more careful. 

However, what comes across in things like the blog in the original post and similar things that are being posted lately is that the general opinion has turned from "everyone should be respectful and try not to offend anyone" to "you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful. No one is. Be MORE respectful. Don't expect us to tell you what we find offensive, that sounds like you are blaming me. That shouldn't be my responsibility. And I'm afraid of confronting you, so just don't offend me to begin with. And why aren't you doing more to make sure everyone you game with us being respectful as well? If someone else is being offensive, that's your fault as well. If you didn't know they were being offensive, that's your fault as well, you should be more aware of what the community does and says and refuse to allow those people to be part of the community. You should be spending a significant amount of time and effort making sure the community changes for the better. If you aren't, you might as well be perpetuating everything that happens."

I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader. I will treat everyone equally based on their merit. 

The problem is that the prevailing attitude has becoming one of "if you aren't crusading for our cause, you are part of the problem. There's no middle ground. Either you're with us or against us."


----------



## Springheel

> After all, Springheel said, "99% of the people around him." Around him. As in, a group.




For the record, I meant "around him" as, the people who were close enough to hear the comment.  Not necessarily his own personal gaming group.  I could have been clearer.



> You say that, but it happens pretty regularly.  I had to report such an  issue myself at my local sci-fi con in January.  There's a large chunk  of people who do not agree with you on the morality of groping - they  think it is okay for them to do it!




This is covered by the legal definition of sexual assault, is it not?  You grab someone's butt without their permission and you can be charged with sexual assault.  There's not much room for interpretation or misunderstanding there.  That is entirely different than causing "offense".
​


----------



## MechaPilot

Springheel said:


> It's certainly not about "women getting their butts grabbed".




It certainly is about people being sexually assaulted.  It's not ONLY about that, but any discussion of women in gaming being sexually harassed is going to be interlinked with the related issues of women being sexually assaulted & battered, or raped.  This is one of the reasons why I suggested that greater security camera coverage would be beneficial, because without a culture that refuses to tolerate tolerate these things and will stand up as witnesses when they happen, camera footage is the best way to prevent things like gropings from being he said she said situations that cannot be adequately prosecuted.


----------



## tomBitonti

MechaPilot said:


> It certainly is about people being sexually assaulted.  It's not ONLY about that, but any discussion of women in gaming being sexually harassed is going to be interlinked with the related issues of women being sexually assaulted & battered, or raped.  This is one of the reasons why I suggested that greater security camera coverage would be beneficial, because without a culture that refuses to tolerate tolerate these things and will stand up as witnesses when they happen, camera footage is the best way to prevent things like gropings from being he said she said situations that cannot be adequately prosecuted.




Eh, but that creates problems of its own.  I'm all for more accountability and respectfulness, but not sure to what extent I'm for adding cameras.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Dire Bare said:


> Although, if you outright admitted that you won't allow "those types of people" at your table, that's a red flag. Not allowing folks "not good" at role-playing? What does that even mean? How do you tell somebody that they are just not good enough at roleplaying to stay at your table? Now, if you really are just asking folks that share a similar style to you to game with you in your private games, that's fine I suppose . . . but the language you use sounds suspect to me.



No, I disallow people from joining my group if I think they'll make my group worse for any reason.  Sometimes it's because someone talks way too much or they can't stop using their phone, or they keep bringing up politics or religion at the table and it keeps causing us to become distracted and start fights(I'm about "this" close to kicking someone out of my group for that right now).  Sometimes it's because they are constantly questioning my rulings or they seem incapable of grasping the rules even when they've been explained the rules 10 times.  Sometimes I just prefer some people over others and there's only 6 spots free.  So, I'll take the player who comes up with thoughtful characters who have interesting personalities and motivations and puts on silly voices over the one who sits in the corner not saying anything and barely contributing.

Sometimes this means that, indirectly, I'm not allowing "those types of people" in that "those types of people" are very quiet people or way too talkative people or the kind of people that do other things that annoy me.



Dire Bare said:


> If you are blocking folks from your table at a gaming convention, in an open-gaming section . . . that would be harassing and if I were the event organizer, that would be your last table to GM at.



I've never said no to someone joining us in public.  I wouldn't.  I've wanted to a number of times as there was at least a couple of people who annoyed the crap out of me, but I let them play anyways and was very patient with them.


----------



## Umbran

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think the problem here is that most people believe they are already being mindful. I would never say anything in public that I thought would overly offend someone.




Of course not.  But do you have the personal experience to know with reasonable certainty what would offend?  The point is that the white men generally don't, and therefore misjudge what would offend someone.  This is merely ignorance, and not a moral failing in and of itself.  



> If I say something that offends you, I expect you to point that out to me so I know your tolerance level is lower than most and I can try to be more careful.




Claiming that the person offended has "lower tolerance than most" is eschewing any responsibility you might have, and ascribing a weakness to the victim - oh, it can't be that you screwed up, they are just really, really touchy!  

Problem:  While *you* may deal with such things pleasantly, as has already been mentioned, men in general frequently don't.  When faced with what they read as an accusation, they instead push back, and dismiss or blame the victim - just like you did above, probably without even realizing it.  So, the victim must do a risk assessment - do they just take the offense, or risk having the guy jump on her for being offended? 



> "...you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful..."




Have you considered the possibility that, broadly speaking, this might be true?  That maybe our speech and behavior is still littered with a whole lot of traditional misogyny that we don't notice?



> I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader.




That's your choice, of course.  But you get to ask yourself if that's a really ethical position to take.  How is "I don't want to be a social crusader" different from, "I am okay with this group of people being put upon by my majority group"?  

There's a practical limit, of course - it isn't like there are enough hours in the day for anyone to fight against *every* wrong in the world.  But I don't think that's what you're being asked to do.  It isn't like you are actually being asked to do much at all - learn to be somewhat more aware, *listen* when you are told about a problem, and advocate for others to your peers when it comes up.  Open your eyes a bit, and then don't tolerate it when you see it.


----------



## Gradine

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think the problem here is that most people believe they are already being mindful. I would never say anything in public that I thought would overly offend someone. Some amount of offense is always going to happen since everyone has different comfort levels. If I say something that offends you, I expect you to point that out to me so I know your tolerance level is lower than most and I can try to be more careful.
> 
> However, what comes across in things like the blog in the original post and similar things that are being posted lately is that the general opinion has turned from "everyone should be respectful and try not to offend anyone" to "you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful. No one is. Be MORE respectful. Don't expect us to tell you what we find offensive, that sounds like you are blaming me. That shouldn't be my responsibility. And I'm afraid of confronting you, so just don't offend me to begin with. And why aren't you doing more to make sure everyone you game with us being respectful as well? If someone else is being offensive, that's your fault as well. If you didn't know they were being offensive, that's your fault as well, you should be more aware of what the community does and says and refuse to allow those people to be part of the community. You should be spending a significant amount of time and effort making sure the community changes for the better. If you aren't, you might as well be perpetuating everything that happens."
> 
> I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader. I will treat everyone equally based on their merit.
> 
> The problem is that the prevailing attitude has becoming one of "if you aren't crusading for our cause, you are part of the problem. There's no middle ground. Either you're with us or against us."




No one is asking anyone to "crusade" for any cause. You do not need to "crusade" to "contribute" to building a better community. And contributing is simple. If a gamer at your table, or at your FLGS, or at a Con you are attending, says or does things that are meant demean, harass, threaten or harm women, _say something_. Whether there are other women around or not. Exactly how you want to respond is up to you, but make it clear that those attitudes are no longer welcome in our hobby. That's all.

If you _say nothing_, then your (and others') silence (to say nothing of explicit support) is taken as confirmation of their beliefs and attitudes and may very well encourage them to act on those attitudes to terrorize women in public (or private) Gaming spaces. I'm sorry, but saying nothing in those situations makes you part of the problem. That's kind of the point behind things like #YesAllMen. It's the point of articles like these. No, not all male games are terrorizing women. Not by a long shot. Yes, way more men _participate_ in this culture of terrorism than believe they do, because they ignore or fail to confront or respond to such terrorism, not just when it actually happens; but also in smaller, more private settings when potential terrorists signal their attitudes and beliefs as a means of gaining acceptance from their peer groups and their peers say nothing.

Like it or not, harassment and acts of violence against (and I shouldn't have to say this, but primarily if not exclusively) women in gaming and gaming-adjacent settings has and continues to be a serious problem. And like it or not, every gamer, regardless of their gender, race, age, or status, has some measure of power in stopping that harassment, in many cases well before it even happens. And therefore every gamer does have to make the choice to use that power (in which case you are part of the solution), or refuse to use that power (in which case, sorry, but you are part of the problem).

The whole "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" quote has been floating around these threads quite a few times for a reason. I'll close with another, even more relevant quote; this from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Gradine said:


> I'll close with another, even more relevant quote; this from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:
> 
> "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."




That's a good one.


----------



## Dire Bare

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And it's not my intention to blame anyone.  I wasn't there (well, I was likely at the convention, since I've gone every year for the last 20, but I wasn't in that room), so I don't know the circumstances of what happened.  I don't know her.  At least, I don't recognize her picture when someone showed it to me and I was told her name and don't recognize that either.  I'm just relating what I've heard from some of the people involved.  When I asked someone who is more involved in the planning of the convention, that's pretty much the answer they gave me.  I figured since it was being discussed, I'd pass it along.






Majoru Oakheart said:


> No, I disallow people from joining my group if I think they'll make my group worse for any reason.




Oakheart, sorry if my responses seemed on the attack, it wasn't my intention. And, thanks for your continued responses, they clarified your thinking and intention quite a bit, and I appreciate the extra info in this discussion!


----------



## sunshadow21

Umbran said:


> No.  I am saying the post is overstated, and largely irrelevant to the current real-world needs.  It is quibbling over hypothetical possible scenarios of what might happen, and redirects from the actual issues being reported.  The post has missed the point of the thread, really.
> 
> And this is common - it is rather like the "not all men" argument, trying to focus on the balance to protect the innocent men who have done no harm, as if they're the important issue at hand.




You are wrong. I am not trying to redirect the conversation; I am trying to flesh it out beyond the piece that was originally discussed. I have no illusions of grandeur that the things I or others have pointed out are big enough to outweigh your points, but that does not make them irrelevant. You cannot simply dismiss them without consequences any more than I can simply dismiss the author of the original article because she chose to use a particularly inflammatory language. You may think my concerns are overstated, but they will come up in the real world, and their impact will be what you make of them. If you don't have a better response than "Your opinion doesn't matter right now, suck it up and endure the pain, silly man" (which is what most of the arguments on this thread have boiled down to), you're going to have a lot bigger problem on your hands than you were expecting or were prepared to deal with. If you actually take your own advice and learn how to listen and be respectful of the opinions on the other side, you will find that you have a lot more allies than you currently seem to believe. If you actually give the majority of people a reason to be helpful rather than simply threatening them because they dare to not automatically agree with you, a lot of currently quiet support will materialize and speak up. Yes, there will still be idiots, and yes, most people still aren't going to be all that interested in shouldering the problems of the entire world just because you told them they should, but if you temper your expectations of what qualifies as being offensive by making it clear that you are indeed giving those people room to breath in the language you use, the actions you take, and the tone you use, a lot more people will be willing to at least listen and not get defensive the second you approach them. If you stop expecting people to fully commit to your cause 100% without question or fail all the time, you will find that there are a lot of little things these people are already doing that are just as effective (and sometimes more so) as anything I've seen suggested in this thread thus far. Simply put, anger and raw force alone will not win you allies or solve the very real problems we face.



sanishiver said:


> It's safe to say that the sort of hyper-liberalism run amok that is making strange places of American and British universities is not at the core of the drive to bring awareness to the issue of harassment and abuse of women (and others)* in gaming*.
> 
> "Don't let the crazy liberals ruin gaming for everyone!" is a separate discussion from the topic of this thread.




And yet, here we are, many, many pages into the discussion because neither of those statements have been proven true. You cannot separate the gaming community from the rest of the world that neatly, and this thread is ample proof of that. While I don't really care for some of the hyperbole being used to discount the original point of the thread, there are valid points that have been brought in from other aspects of how these issues are playing out elsewhere that are relevent to what we as a gaming community can expect in terms of what needs to be done to define and solve the problem effectively. Most of those points have been summarily dismissed solely on the grounds of "But that has nothing to do with us in the gaming community," and a great opportunity for your side to practice what you preach and listen for a bit has been lost. You may have already determined in your head that the problem and solution have been adequately defined as far as the immediate concerns of the gaming community are concerned, but I, and many have others, have not reached the same level of comfort with the conclusions that have been presented. As far I am concerned nothing mentioned by either side in the article or this thread is anything more than a solid start to the conversation and that anyone who believes they know enough to be able to dismiss the other side as outdated opinion is ultimately going to find themeselves proven wrong when they find out they don't actually know more than anybody in the conversation. At this point, there is still simply too many definitions that have yet to be adequately defined, and too many potential actions and consequences still to be explored for anyone to be able to much more than make educated guesses regarding the "proper" way for this to play out.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Umbran said:


> Of course not.  But do you have the personal experience to know with reasonable certainty what would offend?  The point is that the white men generally don't, and therefore misjudge what would offend someone.  This is merely ignorance, and not a moral failing in and of itself.



The things is, this is impossible to know.  What offends one person doesn't offend another.

As an example.  I had one group that had 2 women in it.  Out of the blue one day, one of them texted the entire group after playing with us for 4 months: "I can't stand all of the jokes you guys are making anymore.  They are sexist, racist, and misogynist, and rape jokes.  I won't be playing anymore."  The next session we all had a meeting to try to figure out what jokes she was talking about since not a single one of us remember saying anything that could be interpreted that way.  I was particularly worried because I was the DM and I had met her on the internet and invited her to our group.  Even the other woman in the group could not come up with a single incident of anyone saying anything offensive.

I sent the woman who left a text apologizing immediately and saying that it wasn't our intention to do any of those things and if we screwed up, I'd fix it and make it didn't happen anymore.  But she never replied to my text messages and immediately removed me from Facebook, Steam and a bunch of other places we were friends.  To this day I have no idea what I said or did wrong and neither does anyone else in our group.

We especially don't know about any rape jokes.  Well, except ONE the entire time she played with us and it was one guy who said "Look, I'm going to make a joke, it's kind of offensive but it's a joke.  Does anyone care?  Seriously, I don't want to offend anyone."  Everyone said it was ok and I don't even remember it.  It was a horrible joke it and I told him that.  Said it wasn't funny and maybe he should have just left it alone and he agreed not to do it again.



Umbran said:


> Claiming that the person offended has "lower tolerance than most" is eschewing any responsibility you might have, and ascribing a weakness to the victim - oh, it can't be that you screwed up, they are just really, really touchy!



That's because everyone has a responsibility in a social interaction.  It takes 2 to be offended:  One to do the offending and one to actually BE offended.  If I'm lactose intolerant and really hate milk because of what it does to me, I might get really offended when people talk about how great milk is.  But I'm choosing to be offended instead of understanding that milk is a normal part of life that everyone else doesn't know is offensive to me.

A more solid example is alcohol.  I hate the stuff.  I hate drunk people.  I hate bars, clubs, and the entire scene.  I think that alcohol turns people into idiots and is the cause of a large number of problems in our society.  I hate when people talk about it because they are perpetuating a culture where it's completely acceptable to run around doing stupid things and then blaming them on alcohol afterwards and everyone laughs about it.  But I had to long ago accept that my feelings about the topic aren't share by...almost anyone.  Alcohol makes the world go round and when I'm around people, they're going to be drinking and talking about drinking.  I can be the guy who complains about it, gets mad at people and refuses to hang out with anyone drinking or I can learn that the world doesn't revolve around my sensibilities and just relax.  I chose the latter and other people can too.

When you are on the wrong side of the majority, sometimes you have to just accept that what you find acceptable isn't what other people do.  That's fine.  But if you go into a situation where you know you're the minority and get angry at the majority for doing what they've always done, you need to accept part of the responsibility for being offended.


Umbran said:


> Problem:  While *you* may deal with such things pleasantly, as has already been mentioned, men in general frequently don't.  When faced with what they read as an accusation, they instead push back, and dismiss or blame the victim - just like you did above, probably without even realizing it.  So, the victim must do a risk assessment - do they just take the offense, or risk having the guy jump on her for being offended?



No, I realized I did it.  I just don't think there's anything wrong with pushing back.  I think that is how we come to a consensus.  If someone yells out "The word Man for humans is offensive to me because it misogynistically assumes that males are more important than women." and I say "I don't think that's what it is assuming at all.  It is just a word.  It makes no judgements about you at all." and everyone in the room agrees, then at that point you have 2 choices:  Stop being offended about something that obviously is only important to you and only offends you.  Or you need to get the heck out of there because you can't stand being around people that misogynistic.  If you choose the latter, you might soon be hiding in your basement refusing to come out because the world is out to get you.

It is possible to be TOO sensitive.  There is nothing wrong with telling people they are too sensitive when it is true.



Umbran said:


> Have you considered the possibility that, broadly speaking, this might be true?  That maybe our speech and behavior is still littered with a whole lot of traditional misogyny that we don't notice?



I know our language is littered with that stuff.  I just don't think it's important.  I don't believe that some leftover language creates some sort of oppression like some would have you believe.  I believe the intention behind the words is the only thing that's important.  If someone doesn't actually mistreat people then some accidental body language or words that could be interpreted poorly doesn't make someone misogynist.

I believe that the definition of misogyny has become VERY stretched in the last 10 or 20 years.  And if you put 100 women in a room and asked them to rate phrases in terms of how misogynistic they are that you wouldn't get 10 of them to agree.  And that even if only 2 of them think something is misogynistic that those 2 will make blog posts about how rampant misogyny is in the world.



Umbran said:


> That's your choice, of course.  But you get to ask yourself if that's a really ethical position to take.  How is "I don't want to be a social crusader" different from, "I am okay with this group of people being put upon by my majority group"?



I think that people's opinions change in time.  And it's slow change and it doesn't happen because a bunch of people complain about it.  What's the majority opinion now will be different in the future.  And things naturally change to be more open and accepting.  So, it is inevitable that things will get better and it will take about the same about of them to change whether I stand up on a soapbox or I sit and wait.

But bad things happen and I can't be around to stop all of them and I can't feel guilty about all of it.  I'm not flying to 3rd world counties to buy hungry people food.  I'm not attending rallies for every disease that needs funding.  Those things are bad and I want them fixed.  But not crusading for them isn't the same as saying I'm ok with any of them.

If I see it happening and it's something other than a minor offense, I'll speak up.  But unless it happens in front of me, I'll let it work itself out eventually.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Gradine said:


> If you _say nothing_, then your (and others') silence (to say nothing of explicit support) is taken as confirmation of their beliefs and attitudes and may very well encourage them to act on those attitudes to terrorize women in public (or private) Gaming spaces. I'm sorry, but saying nothing in those situations makes you part of the problem. That's kind of the point behind things like #YesAllMen. It's the point of articles like these. No, not all male games are terrorizing women. Not by a long shot. Yes, way more men _participate_ in this culture of terrorism than believe they do, because they ignore or fail to confront or respond to such terrorism, not just when it actually happens; but also in smaller, more private settings when potential terrorists signal their attitudes and beliefs as a means of gaining acceptance from their peer groups and their peers say nothing.



I disagree that there is such thing as a "culture of terrorism", which is the main thing that causes me to disagree with the other side.  I think physical abuse of any kind is wrong.  I think we should stop assaults, we should band together to make sure violence never happens.  I believe our actions should reflect our equal and mutual respect for all other humans on the planet regardless of race, gender, or any other factor.

I don't believe words constitute violence or contribute to a "culture of terrorism".  And that point appears to be the battlefield that most of these battles are fought over.  I believe people can disagree, they can say things that are even kind of offensive.  We have the right to stop hanging around that person because they are a jerk.  Or we can overlook them being slightly offensive because overall, we like them.  In the same way that I can overlook people with different religious or political views that I have even while I simultaneously view some of thei opinions as offensive.

I live by the motto "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".  That includes offensive things. 



Gradine said:


> The whole "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" quote has been floating around these threads quite a few times for a reason. I'll close with another, even more relevant quote; this from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:
> 
> "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."



But all these assume a level of evil I don't believe is happening.  When things happen that I consider bad enough to act, you bet I'm gong to act.  People who are being attacked, hurt, assaulted, I will be there to stop it immediately.  If people are complaining that a guy playing at their table called them beautiful and they didn't ASK for that compliment so they shouldn't have to put up with people sexually harassed like that...I'm going to shrug and say that's not that big of a deal.


----------



## billd91

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I disagree that there is such thing as a "culture of terrorism", which is the main thing that causes me to disagree with the other side.  I think physical abuse of any kind is wrong.  I think we should stop assaults, we should band together to make sure violence never happens.  I believe our actions should reflect our equal and mutual respect for all other humans on the planet regardless of race, gender, or any other factor.
> 
> I don't believe words constitute violence or contribute to a "culture of terrorism".  And that point appears to be the battlefield that most of these battles are fought over.  I believe people can disagree, they can say things that are even kind of offensive.  We have the right to stop hanging around that person because they are a jerk.  Or we can overlook them being slightly offensive because overall, we like them.  In the same way that I can overlook people with different religious or political views that I have even while I simultaneously view some of thei opinions as offensive.
> 
> I live by the motto "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".  That includes offensive things.




It does not, however, include threats. They go beyond simply offensive acts and into criminal ones and are not at all protected as a freedom of expression. There is no right to be defended in those situations. And it's clear that there are areas around women in gaming, particularly computer gaming, where death and rape threats are made. While I too am reluctant to call it terrorism (since that word is used far too often these days), participants clearly contribute to an environment of intimidation directed at women. So the leap to calling it terrorism when it is clearly intended to sow fear? Not that far a leap, I'm forced to admit.


----------



## sunshadow21

billd91 said:


> It does not, however, include threats. They go beyond simply offensive and into criminal and are not at all protected as a freedom of expression. There is no right to be defended in those situations. And it's clear that there are areas around women in gaming, particularly computer gaming, where death and rape threats are made. While I too am reluctant to call it terrorism (since that word is used far too often these days), participants clearly contribute to an environment of intimidation directed at women. So the leap to calling it terrorism when it is clearly intended to sow fear? Not that far a leap, I'm forced to admit.




And those that make the threats are being stupid and deserve everything they get. The key is that it really isn't that hard to prove genuine threats, so I don't get why so many people are hesitant to share details. If it is a genuine threat or act of physical abuse, sharing the details to allow the proper people to act upon those details is going to make for a more secure environment in the long run, even if it might mean some additional short term stress.


----------



## billd91

sunshadow21 said:


> And those that make the threats are being stupid and deserve everything they get. The key is that it really isn't that hard to prove genuine threats, so I don't get why so many people are hesitant to share details. If it is a genuine threat or act of physical abuse, sharing the details to allow the proper people to act upon those details is going to make for a more secure environment in the long run, even if it might mean some additional short term stress.




You have to understand that intimidation often works. In an environment of fear and threats, how many people really want to be the ones making the reports? If you're already out in the public and being directly threatened like Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian, you may have nothing to lose by reporting it. But then look at what happened to Felicia Day when she spoke out against the threats - she became a target and her security compromised. That's the point of the threat in the first place - to make it too costly in stress and compromised security to speak out or report incidents. It's pretty easy for the terrorists in this situation, if we choose to use that word, to win.

To illustrate this with a bit of history - look how easy it was for the Soviet and other Warsaw Pact governments to control dissent. You set up an atmosphere promoting denunciation and back it with state power to make people disappear or head off to prison camps and pretty soon, you don't have a lot of criticism. These maladjusted goons making threats in male-dominated nerd hobbies may not have that kind of coordinated power, but the potential for a lone nut job to make good on one of these threats is still a concern. Most of them are just talk, but can you really afford to ignore them all?


----------



## sunshadow21

billd91 said:


> You have to understand that intimidation often works. In an environment of fear and threats, how many people really want to be the ones making the reports? If you're already out in the public and being directly threatened like Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian, you may have nothing to lose by reporting it. But then look at what happened to Felicia Day when she spoke out against the threats - she became a target and her security compromised. That's the point of the threat in the first place - to make it too costly in stress and compromised security to speak out or report incidents. It's pretty easy for the terrorists in this situation, if we choose to use that word, to win.




Not if you have the courage to look past the initial pain. Almost every victory that has ever been achieved in the eternal battle against oppression came because someone decided to focus on the long term goal, not the short term pain. The "terrorists" are relying on their victims to focus almost entirely on the short term pain, and almost always succeed with almost no effort because society has become very short sighted in it's concerns, goals, and preferences for how to implement them. I make no claim that it is an easy process, but expecting everyone else to tip toe around the pain of the victim really isn't all that great either. Personally, if I ran into a situation that bothered me that much personally, I would rather absorb the pain knowing that the enivonment afterwards would be a much more welcoming one, if not for me, than at least others like me. The idea of keeping it all bottled up inside as something I'm so terrified to even acknowledge that I can't be out in public without risking a stranger making a comment that will trigger an uncontrollabe reaction to be far more unpleasant.


----------



## billd91

sunshadow21 said:


> Not if you have the courage to look past the initial pain. Almost every victory that has ever been achieved in the eternal battle against oppression came because someone decided to focus on the long term goal, not the short term pain. The "terrorists" are relying on their victims to focus almost entirely on the short term pain, and almost always succeed with almost no effort because society has become very short sighted in it's concerns, goals, and preferences for how to implement them. I make no claim that it is an easy process, but expecting everyone else to tip toe around the pain of the victim really isn't all that great either. Personally, if I ran into a situation that bothered me that much personally, I would rather absorb the pain knowing that the enivonment afterwards would be a much more welcoming one, if not for me, than at least others like me. The idea of keeping it all bottled up inside as something I'm so terrified to even acknowledge that I can't be out in public without risking a stranger making a comment that will trigger an uncontrollabe reaction to be far more unpleasant.




You say that now, but it's kind of easy to say that you'd stand up to the challenge when you're not being threatened. You ever been the subject of multiple death or rape threats and then had your address posted online?


----------



## sunshadow21

billd91 said:


> You say that now, but it's kind of easy to say that you'd stand up to the challenge when you're not being threatened. You ever been the subject of multiple death or rape threats and then had your address posted online?




I can say quite easily that the alternative would be worse. I've been through challenges of my own, and I've dealt with them both ways. The ones that no longer bother me are the ones I finally confronted and dealt with; they may not have involved death threats, but you couldn't have convinced me that the pain was that much different while I was going through it. Keeping things bottled up always took more effort and caused more pain than simply dealing with it, no matter how severe the pain was to do so. I will say that I was very lucky in one key regard; I have a reliable and trustworthy network of family, friends, and associates that enabled me to deal with the worst of it. If someone lacks that, that is the very first thing to focus on, not whether some stranger made a comment that made you comfortable or not.


----------



## Gradine

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I disagree that there is such thing as a "culture of terrorism", which is the main thing that causes me to disagree with the other side.




I fail to understand why anyone claims to be the arbiter of whether people other than themselves feel "terrorized." If a person or group claim they are being terrorized... they are being terrorized. That's kind of the definition. Now whether that terrorism is intentional or unintentional is a worthy topic of debate of debate and  pretty important when it comes to determining what's to be done about it. But you don't get to decide whether someone else feels terrorized or not. You can refuse to believe them, but make no mistake; that's an entirely different can of worms from "disagreeing" with them. You either believe them when they say they are victims of terrorism (thus, said terrorism actually exists, again whether intentional or otherwise); or you don't, in which case you feel they are being dishonest in their claims. If there's some middle ground you feel you occupy, I don't really see it.



> I don't believe words constitute violence or contribute to a "culture of terrorism".  And that point appears to be the battlefield that most of these battles are fought over.  I believe people can disagree, they can say things that are even kind of offensive.  We have the right to stop hanging around that person because they are a jerk.  Or we can overlook them being slightly offensive because overall, we like them.  In the same way that I can overlook people with different religious or political views that I have even while I simultaneously view some of thei opinions as offensive.




I have to admit, I have a hard time taking seriously any person who is any kind of writer or storyteller (a group which I believe all DMs, if not all roleplayers, certainly belong to) when they pull out the "they're just words" argument. Okay, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously over that argument, but storytellers especially have absolutely no excuse to peddling that hogwash. I mean, seriously? You mean to tell me you believe you have the power to whisk a group of players away to a fantastical realm of heroes and villains, for hours at a time, and over a period of months (if not years) invest those players in their characters and their deeds and the people they meet and world(s) they interact with, and then say with a straight face you don't think words have the power to invoke real fear in others? If you truly believe words don't have the power to truly impact people _what are you even doing here?_

Of course words have power. Words have the ability to invoke any number of very real emotions in every single person. Have you never felt sorrow, shed a single tear over any work of fiction or poetry? Or non-fiction, for that matter? Have you and your players never laughed at a particularly hilarious moment in your games? Have you, honestly, never once tried to evoke or illicit _actual fear_ in your players by presenting them with a particularly frightening foe or circumstance?

Has nobody ever once made you hurt, or upset, or angry, over something they said to you? Something deeply personal? Has nobody ever really crossed that line to you, personally, not once in your life?

I refuse to believe anybody who says they think words have no power. I do believe what they're really saying is that they believe certain people should not let certain words have power over them, and way more often than not, it is someone proscribing to _other_ people, whose personal experiences they generally know little to nothing about, how they should or should not react. It is almost always completely unfounded and always extraordinarily condescending.



> I live by the motto "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".  That includes offensive things.




In my experience I've found that people have a much easier time living by this motto when their entire lives have not been directly impacted by hate speech. My motto is "Hate has no place in my community." Of course I don't think hate speech (and the kinds of things we're talking about in this thread certainly constitute hate speech) should be illegal, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate it in my communities. Not tolerating hate speech is pretty much essential to creating an inclusive space, by the way. Tolerating hate speech in your community _as a matter of fact_ excludes any individual from your community who is negatively impacted by the kinds of hate speech you tolerate.



> But all these assume a level of evil I don't believe is happening.  When things happen that I consider bad enough to act, you bet I'm gong to act.  People who are being attacked, hurt, assaulted, I will be there to stop it immediately.  If people are complaining that a guy playing at their table called them beautiful and they didn't ASK for that compliment so they shouldn't have to put up with people sexually harassed like that...I'm going to shrug and say that's not that big of a deal.




Bystander intervention is extremely important, and you and other remaining committed to that idea should be commended for it.

As to why, specifically, unsolicited compliments are probably a bad idea (particularly towards women and particularly regarding their appearance), there's a wealth of excellent information throughout internet on exactly why, but here's a good primer: http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutere...that-random-girl-on-the-street-that-shes-hot/

But I feel like I have to touch on the most significant part of your comment, that last part. I think it clarifies a lot of why there is always so much push back on stuff like this. I'm going to spell out to you (and any others) in big bold letters so it's clear to everyone, because this is what I think is the biggest holdup on there ever generating any kind of real, significant change (on a community-wide basis, anyway) on topics such as these.



> I'm going to shrug and say that's not that big of a deal.




*YOU DO NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE A BIG DEAL TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN YOURSELF.*

That hypothetical woman in your example? She is coming to you because to her *it is a big deal* and you, being in the position of authority that she is coming to you about, then get to make a decision to either treat her with respect or disrespect. You refusing to confront the other individual about it says that you expect that he will be unable to have an enjoyable time at your table unless he is able to tell other women how pretty he thinks they are, and that his right to be able to do that in order to feel comfortable at your table supersedes her right to feel comfortable at your table by not receiving unsolicited commentary on her physical appearance. In fact, your sample response to just shrug and basically tell her to get over it is an obvious sign that you do not, at all, respect her, her experiences, or her right to have an enjoyable time at your table. 

And you wonder why you feel like you're being treated as if you're part of a problem?

Look, this is simple folks. You either respect everyone, including their right to feel comfortable playing in your game, or you only respect that right for a certain kind of player. How you choose to act in your home game is obviously your prerogative; but you how choose to act in public spaces designed for your community is fair game for discussion by the broader community.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Majoru Oakheart said:


> However, what comes across in things like the blog in the original post and similar things that are being posted lately is that the general opinion has turned from "everyone should be respectful and try not to offend anyone" to "you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful. No one is. Be MORE respectful. Don't expect us to tell you what we find offensive, that sounds like you are blaming me. That shouldn't be my responsibility.



I get it. Believe me, I do.

When you're getting piled on, especially if you're a guy, it's natural to get defensive. However, think about it from a woman's point of view: women are getting harassed and men aren't doing much about it, so they have a good reason to be pissed off. 

The fact is that men aren't holding up their end of the basic social contract we all sign when we take the first step out of the door each day. 

I don't think being defensive is an indictment of character. 

What I like about the article I link to in my signature is that it recognizes that reacting defensively is both normal and natural, and then it goes on to say (in so many words), "Now lets move past defensiveness and talk about what we can _do_ to address the problem of harassment in gaming."



> ASK women about their experiences in gaming. A large chunk of the problem’s persistence is that a woman who gets offended/hit on/etc. and leaves doesn’t actually cause the majority of sensible male gamers to DO ANYTHING. “Oh, yeah, Stephanie…nobody’s seen her in two weeks? I guess she got a new job or something and didn’t tell us.” Smiling monsters rely on your not following up with their victims to get the space they need to operate.
> 
> LISTEN to what they say. Remember, they’re feeling isolated, and they feel like nobody will believe them over the other men at the table. Don’t accuse them of exaggerating. Don’t “put them in the witness box” — just listen. It won’t be comfortable. Time and time again, I’ve been told that the single most valuable thing I ever did was listen, so that she didn’t feel she was facing this alone. As a guy, it’s REALLY hard to believe that _just_ listening is that helpful, but it’s observably true.
> 
> WATCH for signs of discomfort. Women take up different body language when they feel threatened. They close their bodies off; they cross their arms in front of their chest as if they expect to get hit. They move to a chair on the other side of the table to get away from someone. They lean away from someone at a table to maximize the space between them or to preserve their personal space. These are all cues. If you see these signs, go back to “ASK” — you can ask “Are you OK?” If someone is getting close to a woman showing these body language cues, ask him “Hey, wait a minute. Do you know her?”
> 
> PAY ATTENTION to what other people are saying. We get it. Guys in the gaming hobby treat it like an old boy’s club, or chatter in the gym locker room. They can talk about whatever they feel like! They can crack rape jokes. They can crack blonde jokes. They can make comments like “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.” The uncomfortable woman probably won’t make a confrontation, because she’s unsure if she’s got any support in the room at all. That’s your job. Let her know that she’s NOT ALONE in thinking this is unacceptable behavior.
> 
> LOOK FOR ESCALATIONS. A lot of guys think that bawdy humor is “just part of gaming.” It absolutely can be with a group of people who know each other well. Unfortunately, at conventions and in game stores, bawdy humor is used by smiling monsters as a way to “gain permission” to do more. The pattern looks like this: Tell an edgy joke, see if anyone looks nervous before they laugh. Wait for people to calm down a bit, and tell a slightly more sexual joke. Repeat, and each repetition, escalate to more sexually explicit humor. Try touching a shoulder to “reassure.” Smiling monsters take laughing at raunchy jokes as evidence that they’re concealed by the social contract. They also get a thrill out of pushing the boundary of the social contract; it’s how they “win the game” in their head.
> 
> COMMUNICATE with someone who looks uncomfortable. Don’t let them wander off feeling like nobody cares. Ask simple things like “Are you OK?” and listen to what’s said. If they need to go to convention security, get them to convention security. If they just want to leave, separate them from the people harassing them and let them leave on their own, or ask the harasser to leave. It’s the person who’s made uncomfortable’s choice about who leaves the situation, not yours.
> 
> CALL PEOPLE OUT on bad manners. Explain that bad manners have consequences. Explain that this is a public space, and they can either conform to the expected standards of behavior or they can leave. Or you can threaten to leave — this is a pedal democracy; people show their displeasure by leaving. I’ve told gaming tables “You can have me playing, or your rape jokes. Choose now.”
> 
> KEEP AN EYE OUT for smiling monsters. Once you learn to spot them, they’re easy to recognize. They don’t make eye contact with other men or figures of authority, until they’re confronted. They tend to have head gestures (nodding or shaking their head) that are completely opposite of what their words are saying. They’re not prepared for follow-up questions. They get nervous when you talk to their prey, and start edging away. They escalate on raunchy humor, like what’s described above. They have a habit of boldly invading the personal space of anyone female, in ways that they wouldn’t do to a man.




This, right here, is where we should be at in this conversation.

But we can't, because some people still can't bring themselves to act on a problem they're willing to agree exists, because they're afraid of being kicked out of magic tournaments or to opening the door to liberal conspiracies, or something.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader. I will treat everyone equally based on their merit.
> 
> The problem is that the prevailing attitude has becoming one of "if you aren't crusading for our cause, you are part of the problem. There's no middle ground. Either you're with us or against us."



It's not necessary to be a crusader. That word skews what's being asked of male gamers. 

Just keep an eye out. Be aware. Be prepared to act when you see harassment, and be confident you are capable of seeing it.


----------



## Rygar

sanishiver said:


> This, right here, is where we should be at in this conversation.
> 
> But we can't, because some people still can't bring themselves to act on a problem they're willing to agree exists, because they're afraid of being kicked out of magic tournaments or to opening the door to liberal conspiracies, or something.




It's not a conspiracy when it's happening frequently.  

You really should take some time out and google around about convention ejections,  microaggressions,  college student's demands,  etc.  This conversation is very different than what you're thinking it is,  it has a great deal more to do with politics than it does harassment.  In fact,  this isn't even a new conversation,  it's been going on since August 2014 when video gaming refused to adopt certain people's politics.  Heck,  I suspect that whole quoted block of instructions you have there is paraphrased from Anita Sarkesian's/Jon Macintosh's attempt to push into video gaming.


----------



## Springheel

> You either believe them when they say they are victims of terrorism (thus, said terrorism actually exists, again whether intentional or otherwise); or you don't, in which case you feel they are being dishonest in their claims. If there's some middle ground you feel you occupy, I don't really see it.




You can accept that someone FEELS terrorized without accepting that there is actually any terrorism involved.  This is the point several people, including myself, have been making for the past ten pages.   Feelings are completely subjective.  They may or may not correlate with anything in reality.  One of the many specific examples put forward was the person who misheard "minstrel" as "menstrual".  She felt offended, but her offense was based on her mishearing.  It was NOT based on anything in reality.  You can't immediately assume that just because someone TOOK offense, something actually offensive must have been said.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Rygar said:


> This conversation is very different than what you're thinking it is.



Not at all.

It's just that I can tell the difference between what you're talking about, and the issue of harassment in gaming.

Regarding your advice: one of the more memorable Intelligence Squared debates I have listened to was the question: (are) "Liberals Stifling Intellectual Diversity On Campus?"

You should give it a listen.



Rygar said:


> Heck,  I suspect that whole quoted block of instructions you have there is paraphrased from Anita Sarkesian's/Jon Macintosh's attempt to push into video gaming.



Suppose it is. Who cares?


----------



## MechaPilot

sunshadow21 said:


> And those that make the threats are being stupid and deserve everything they get. The key is that *it really isn't that hard to prove genuine threats*, so I don't get why so many people are hesitant to share details. If it is a genuine threat or act of physical abuse, sharing the details to allow the proper people to act upon those details is going to make for a more secure environment in the long run, even if it might mean some additional short term stress.




Really?

If someone whispers in my ear that they want to kill or rape me, that is a genuine threat.  How do I prove it when I'm the only one who heard it?

If someone grabs my breasts or butt, or reaches up my skirt, and there are no cameras, then how do I prove it?  Even if other people saw it, they probably didn't get it on their camera-phones, and they may not be willing to admit what they saw.  A lot of people just want to go about their day and not get involved when trouble comes up.  Going to a convention is similar to going on a vacation, and most vacationers refuse to get involved when something goes down.

Plenty of posters who have been to cons have said that security (even when they aren't part of the problem) is not staffed or trained to adequately handle harassment or assault/battery, and that they're more concerned with keeping the convention running and curbing badgeless attendees than with preventing/catching harassment or criminal activities.


----------



## sunshadow21

MechaPilot said:


> Really?
> 
> If someone whispers in my ear that they want to kill or rape me, that is a genuine threat.  How do I prove it when I'm the only one who heard it?
> 
> If someone grabs my breasts or butt, or reaches up my skirt, and there are no cameras, then how do I prove it?  Even if other people saw it, they probably didn't get it on their camera-phones, and they may not be willing to admit what they saw.  A lot of people just want to go about their day and not get involved when trouble comes up.  Going to a convention is similar to going on a vacation, and most vacationers refuse to get involved when something goes down.
> 
> Plenty of posters who have been to cons have said that security (even when they aren't part of the problem) is not staffed or trained to adequately handle harassment or assault/battery, and that they're more concerned with keeping the convention running and curbing badgeless attendees than with preventing/catching harassment or criminal activities.




In the environment we live in today, if you actually provide all of those details, someone on the con staff (may be security; may be a volunteer; may be an organizer) will almost certainly take some kind of action on it. It might be just to cover their own ass, but probably someone will believe you enough to want to take action. As long as the complaint seems to be about more than a random comment and appears to have been an actual crime, someone will do something. They really have no choice; they can brush off complaints about random comments with little repercussion, but the second that an actual crime is even hinted at, they pretty much have to do something if they don't want to risk their entire reputation either as individuals or as a con. The internet, for better or for worse, will see to that. As long as the complaint is genuine, making the effort to provide the full report will make someone responsible for it, whether it be the con staff or the offender or possibly both. There will almost certainly be a price to pay to see the situation through, but as long as you have some kind of support in place to help you through, the price will almost always be worth the long term gains.


----------



## MechaPilot

I'm going to say something that probably won't earn me any friends, but I feel it needs saying.

Several posters have said they wouldn't tolerate harassment, or assault/battery, in their presence.  Good, that's as it should be.

However, people can say (or type) anything.  My experience with harassment in gaming involved no one at the table standing up for me, despite my extreme distress.  Those players didn't stand up for me because they were complicit.  But, between complicity, intimidation, fear of retaliation, and not wanting to get involved there are plenty of reasons why people might have still allowed my harassment in a game store or at a con.

Again, to those who are stating what they honestly believe when they say they wouldn't tolerate something like that around them, I applaud your stance.  I just wonder how that plays out in practice.  I've seen too many people sacrifice their morals and ideals instead of sacrificing FOR their morals or ideals.  As people, and not gods, we're all very flawed, but I'd like to think that we try.  I really would like to.  And, sometimes I do think that we try.  But, all too often I just don't have the strength to bear that belief absent any real evidence.

You know, I love this hobby.  I've met some really wonderful people in it; current friends and friends who've passed, and I treasure the time I've spent with all of them (even my friend's idiot step-brother, who thought the answer to an in-game riddle was "spork").  I love telling stories, and having a good laugh around the table.  I love watching genuine excitement on others' faces when a combat is tough, or when the session ends/breaks on a cliffhanger.  I love it when I get the mood just right in a horror game and a player actually gets goosebumps.  There's just so much I love about this hobby, but I hate that I'll never get to share it with a lot of people because I know I won't feel safe or welcome in the places where that happens.  I put a lot of love and devotion into this hobby, but it feels so unrequited because I don't think it will ever embrace me back.

I'm gonna stop now.  I'm actually starting to cry.  Maybe that's too much information, and maybe it's just because I have occasional depression issues.  I don't know.  I just, I don't know.


----------



## Hussar

Majoru Oakheart said:


> /snip
> 
> The problem is that the prevailing attitude has becoming one of "if you aren't crusading for our cause, you are part of the problem. There's no middle ground. Either you're with us or against us."




Swimming upthread a bit.  Still reading so, maybe this has been addressed, but...

You absolutely are part of the problem.  If you aren't actively stepping up to the plate and making sure that harassment stops every single time it comes up, then, yup, you are part of the problem.  Every time you say, "well, I just want to game" and you don't tell that person sitting next to you that his/her comments are entirely inappropriate to the venue you are in, you are part of the problem.

Because that's the point she's making in the OP - far too many women are being harassed and far too many gamers are sitting back and not saying anything.  When the store guy made the comment to the native woman about the mini, why didn't every dude in the store stand up and walk out?  Why didn't any of them say anything?  When some girl gets her ass grabbed in front of five guys, _someone_ should be able to turn to that guy and tell him he's a douche.  

But, we don't.  We turn a blind eye and a deaf ear.  It's not our problem.  So, it continues.

Which rolls us around to the idea of investigation.  It's just not plausible.  At a convention, some guy whispers in the cosplay girl's ear that he want's to do nasty things to her when taking a picture, what investigation can be done?  When the con manager comes to the table and asks about some guy grabbing the girl's ass, and five guys all say, "Huh?  Never saw anything" because the guy that did it is a friend and they're not going to rat out their friend, what's going to happen?  The con manager investigated.  Turns out that five people all say it didn't happen, so, the girl gets ejected for making false accusations?  

That's why investigating and asking questions isn't going to help the issue.  Might it happen that some guy gets falsely accused?  Yup.  But, being embarrassed or possibly losing a day at a Con is a very, very small price to pay for making sure that women feel safe and welcomed.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> You can accept that someone FEELS terrorized without accepting that there is actually any terrorism involved.  This is the point several people, including myself, have been making for the past ten pages.   Feelings are completely subjective.  They may or may not correlate with anything in reality.  One of the many specific examples put forward was the person who misheard "minstrel" as "menstrual".  She felt offended, but her offense was based on her mishearing.  It was NOT based on anything in reality.  You can't immediately assume that just because someone TOOK offense, something actually offensive must have been said.




But, so what?

What's going to happen here?  The woman goes and makes a complaint that someone said "menstrual."  She finds it offensive.  The management goes to the person, says, "Hey, there's been a complaint, please watch what you say" because, let's face it, it's not like this is an ejectable offense is it?

And that's the end of it.  No harm, no foul.  At worst, the guy is a bit embarrased and possibly a bit baffled since he didn't actually say anything.  But, again, so what?  That's a pretty small price to pay considering the alternative where every claim has to be verified, with witnesses, before any action will be taken.

What you're basically saying is that anyone who makes a complaint has to prove that it happened before any action will be taken, even when proof is virtually impossible to show.  "He whispered in my ear while taking a picture" is impossible to prove.  There is no way to prove that.  So, the Con management should just shrug their shoulders?  It's not offensive enough?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hussar said:


> But, so what?
> 
> What's going to happen here?  The woman goes and makes a complaint that someone said "menstrual."  She finds it offensive.  The management goes to the person, says, "Hey, there's been a complaint, please watch what you say" because, let's face it, it's not like this is an ejectable offense is it?
> 
> And that's the end of it.  No harm, no foul.  At worst, the guy is a bit embarrased and possibly a bit baffled since he didn't actually say anything.  But, again, so what?  That's a pretty small price to pay considering the alternative where every claim has to be verified, with witnesses, before any action will be taken.
> 
> What you're basically saying is that anyone who makes a complaint has to prove that it happened before any action will be taken, even when proof is virtually impossible to show.  "He whispered in my ear while taking a picture" is impossible to prove.  There is no way to prove that.  So, the Con management should just shrug their shoulders?  It's not offensive enough?




Means matter.  If you don't agree, then we're morally and ethically on opposite sides despite having the same goal of eliminating harassment.


----------



## sunshadow21

MechaPilot said:


> You know, I love this hobby.  I've met some really wonderful people in it; current friends and friends who've passed, and I treasure the time I've spent with all of them (even my friend's idiot step-brother, who thought the answer to an in-game riddle was "spork").  I love telling stories, and having a good laugh around the table.  I love watching genuine excitement on others' faces when a combat is tough, or when the session ends/breaks on a cliffhanger.  I love it when I get the mood just right in a horror game and a player actually gets goosebumps.  There's just so much I love about this hobby, but I hate that I'll never get to share it with a lot of people because I know I won't feel safe or welcome in the places where that happens.  I put a lot of love and devotion into this hobby, but it feels so unrequited because I don't think it will ever embrace me back.




If you have found friends to play with that you enjoy spending time with, it has embraced you. The fact that you may not enjoy going to cons doesn't take away the positive aspects of what you have found in the hobby. Not everyone is going to enjoy going to cons or the public spaces this thread is talking about for a wide number of reasons; it's been a while since I've seen precise percentages, but most games still occur in the privacy of people's homes for a reason. I've been to just enough of them to know that I have no particular feelings about them one way or another (if one is happening close by, and I have some free time, I'll go, but I don't make plans around them), and I participated in organized play leagues for as long as I did only because they were my only real option for playing for many years. I never felt particularly unsafe, but I can fully understand never really feeling welcome. Playing in public is really fun in a lot of ways, but I can fully understand when people say that there is a lot about it that could stand to be improved. A lot of gamers unconsciously form habits they don't realize, and trying to publicly confront them with treats and warnings rarely goes well. Most effective change in this community comes slowly and indirectly. Direct changes like those supported in this thread, however well intentioned they may be, usually backfire; that's why I agree with the sentiment, but not the approach or the forcefulness many want to apply. If the gaming community has a larger problem than much of society, it's because we tend to be far more stubborn, and tend to meet force with equal force, leaving little room for direct change.

My best advice is to not focus on the aspects of the hobby that you don't enjoy. For all that I am sure the details are different, what I copied pretty much describes my relationship with the hobby for a long time, and still applies enough to make me very picky about who I play with now that I have the option to be picky. If options like cons and game stores make you uncomfortable, look at the other options available to you, and see if they are a better fit. With the rise of the internet, a lot of options have opened up. Don't think you're missing out just because you choose other venues than many other players. Focus on the venues that you can play in comfortably and the positive interactions you have with the players you find in those venues. I can say for myself that when I finally did that, my own relationship with the hobby improved immensely.


----------



## sunshadow21

Hussar said:


> But, so what?
> 
> What's going to happen here?  The woman goes and makes a complaint that someone said "menstrual."  She finds it offensive.  The management goes to the person, says, "Hey, there's been a complaint, please watch what you say" because, let's face it, it's not like this is an ejectable offense is it?
> 
> And that's the end of it.  No harm, no foul.  At worst, the guy is a bit embarrased and possibly a bit baffled since he didn't actually say anything.  But, again, so what?  That's a pretty small price to pay considering the alternative where every claim has to be verified, with witnesses, before any action will be taken.
> 
> What you're basically saying is that anyone who makes a complaint has to prove that it happened before any action will be taken, even when proof is virtually impossible to show.  "He whispered in my ear while taking a picture" is impossible to prove.  There is no way to prove that.  So, the Con management should just shrug their shoulders?  It's not offensive enough?




What I believe is that anyone making a complaint needs to accept the possiblity that further proof or questions may be required. Nothing more and nothing less. The fact that the vast majority of complaints can and should be resolved without further input from the complaintant does not remove that at any given convention there are still a lot of complaints that will require further information and/or participation on the part of the person making the complaint. If someone makes a complaint and finds themselves in the latter situation, they need to be prepared enough to be able to do more than simply walk away expecting their end of the situation to be fully resolved after the initial statement. I have no problem with someone who fully understands the limitations of simply stating "I was harassed" using the phrase, but if you don't understand it's limitiations, you need to stay far, far, far away from it. It will cause you more harm than help.


----------



## MechaPilot

sunshadow21 said:


> If you have found friends to play with that you enjoy spending time with, it has embraced you. The fact that you may not enjoy going to cons doesn't take away the positive aspects of what you have found in the hobby. Not everyone is going to enjoy going to cons or the public spaces this thread is talking about for a wide number of reasons; it's been a while since I've seen precise percentages, but most games still occur in the privacy of people's homes for a reason. I've been to just enough of them to know that I have no particular feelings about them one way or another (if one is happening close by, and I have some free time, I'll go, but I don't make plans around them), and I participated in organized play leagues for as long as I did only because they were my only real option for playing for many years. I never felt particularly unsafe, but I can fully understand never really feeling welcome.




It's not that I don't enjoy going to cons: I have shyness issues and don't like being around big crowds, so I've never actually been to a con.  However, I have had discussions (mostly online discussions) with other gamers who have suggested that I would really like it if I attended a con.  I don't think they were intentionally trying to mislead me into something that I wouldn't like (though it's certainly possible they could have been inaccurate while also being genuine).

I also have a friend who shares my interest in anime, and he's suggested that I would really enjoy going to an anime convention: he's even invited me to attend one with him before.  I declined mostly because my work schedule conflicted with the convention date, but I would have had to do a lot of prep work just to feel mildly uncomfortable around crowds that big.  And that's before I found out about the harassment and assault issues at cons (issues which are probably even worse at anime cons given the increased number of cosplayers, the busty anime characters, the existence of the various genres of hentai, etc).

However, for all I know I might actually enjoy attending a con, and maybe getting to play with one or more of the people I've spoken to online.  I'll never find out though, because I don't think it's right that my cost of admission would also have to include my dignity and my right to go unmolested.  Just going by what I've read and been told, I couldn't even imagine standing up and leaning over a gaming table at a con to get a bird's-eye-view of a battlemap and not being preoccupied with the possibility of being groped, or of someone taking an upskirt photo or video.  And that's me I'm talking about: I don't wear very short skirts, and unless I'm alone I'm never going to be the most attractive woman in the room.




sunshadow21 said:


> Playing in public is really fun in a lot of ways, but I can fully understand when people say that there is a lot about it that could stand to be improved. A lot of gamers unconsciously form habits they don't realize, and trying to publicly confront them with treats and warnings rarely goes well. Most effective change in this community comes slowly and indirectly. Direct changes like those supported in this thread, however well intentioned they may be, usually backfire; that's why I agree with the sentiment, but not the approach or the forcefulness many want to apply. If the gaming community has a larger problem than much of society, it's because we tend to be far more stubborn, and tend to meet force with equal force, leaving little room for direct change.




My current group actually plays in public (at a 24/7 restaurant).  It is fun, and they're welcoming enough because we tip well and don't require much attention beyond the odd drink refill, but I do occasionally have to remind the players to quiet down a bit, or to steer clear of certain subjects.  I have to remind myself of that as well, because I enjoy darker humor and lewd (but not vulgar) jokes: I'd probably rate my sense of humor at a middle to hard R.  That said, I manage to keep myself to an overall PG-13 rating when I'm in public, because those are the manners I was raised with.

As far as changes proposed in these threads go, some are probably extreme, some are probably dismissive, and many are probably in between.  The only proposition that people seem to agree on is this:

1) Don't harass/assault others yourself.
2) Be more aware for harassment/assault going on around you
3) Don't tolerate harassment/assault when you see it
4) Cooperate with security and/or police when asked about harassment/assault that you witnessed

And that's all well and good, but does self-policing like that really work?  I've met a lot of good people in this hobby, and I've met my share of awful ones too.  I've seen several posters say they wouldn't tolerate that behavior, but I've seen next to nothing about cases where they actually saw it and did something about it (even if it was just calling the harasser out for being a jerk).  With the way people are in general, I don't even know if most people would care if it happened right in front of them (unless it was happening to a spouse, sibling, child, or friend).  For all I know, I could be groped (or be the subject of one of the other players taking a downblowse photo or video) while leaning over a battlemat at a con only to have the rest of the table do nothing, ask the guy for copies of the photo/video, or tell me it was my fault for wearing a loose or low-cut blouse.  And with the way people are in general, I wouldn't put any of those reactions past them.




sunshadow21 said:


> My best advice is to not focus on the aspects of the hobby that you don't enjoy. For all that I am sure the details are different, what I copied pretty much describes my relationship with the hobby for a long time, and still applies enough to make me very picky about who I play with now that I have the option to be picky. If options like cons and game stores make you uncomfortable, look at the other options available to you, and see if they are a better fit. With the rise of the internet, a lot of options have opened up. Don't think you're missing out just because you choose other venues than many other players. Focus on the venues that you can play in comfortably and the positive interactions you have with the players you find in those venues. I can say for myself that when I finally did that, my own relationship with the hobby improved immensely.




The internet is really not much of an option.  It's just another way to meet strangers who share a similar hobby.  I might be okay with getting a new or additional player at a table full of people I already trust off the internet.  But, after my experience with the group I met at a game store I'll never join a group without being friends with at least one person in the group ahead of time.  For as horrible as my harassment experience was, I was lucky the group's attempt to push me to RP the rape of my character didn't turn into a real-life molestation/rape, and I'll always have that on my mind whenever I meet a group of gamers I don't already know well.


----------



## tomBitonti

MechaPilot said:


> As far as changes proposed in these threads go, some are probably extreme, some are probably dismissive, and many are probably in between. The only proposition that people seem to agree on is this:
> 
> 1) Don't harass/assault others yourself.
> 2) Be more aware for harassment/assault going on around you
> 3) Don't tolerate harassment/assault when you see it
> 4) Cooperate with security and/or police when asked about harassment/assault that you witnessed
> 
> And that's all well and good, but does self-policing like that really work? I've met a lot of good people in this hobby, and I've met my share of awful ones too. I've seen several posters say they wouldn't tolerate that behavior, but I've seen next to nothing about cases where they actually saw it and did something about it (even if it was just calling the harasser out for being a jerk). With the way people are in general, I don't even know if most people would care if it happened right in front of them (unless it was happening to a spouse, sibling, child, or friend). For all I know, I could be groped (or be the subject of one of the other players taking a downblowse photo or video) while leaning over a battlemat at a con only to have the rest of the table do nothing, ask the guy for copies of the photo/video, or tell me it was my fault for wearing a loose or low-cut blouse. And with the way people are in general, I wouldn't put any of those reactions past them.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482661-Harassment-in-gaming/page45#ixzz46HGiObAq




I _think_ suggestions were posted for folks running events which go beyond the above.  Can anyone bring those forward?

I was involved in two events which I will not detail for various reasons.  One involved a co-attendee to a con hitting on a second who was not interested.  Alcohol was involved.  A second I will simply not detail.

But, such is at best anecdotal, and subject to the lens of memory.  And generally, privacy and fairness will get in the way.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Springheel

> But, so what?
> 
> What's going to happen here? The woman goes and makes a complaint that someone said "menstrual." She finds it offensive. The management goes to the person, says, "Hey, there's been a complaint, please watch what you say" because, let's face it, it's not like this is an ejectable offense is it?
> 
> And that's the end of it. No harm, no foul. At worst, the guy is a bit embarrased and possibly a bit baffled since he didn't actually say anything. But, again, so what?




You're moving towards a different point than the one I was making.  My point was in response to Gradine's claim that if someone feels they were harassed, then they clearly WERE harassed.  I think that's wrong for the reasons I stated.  You're moving the discussion to, "even if a person didn't harass someone, what's the harm in treating them like they did?"

There are several answers to that question, but the most obvious one is that it's generally undesirable to treat an innocent person like they're guilty.

But your question could just as easily be asked this way:

"If someone reports that they were offended by something a person said, what's wrong with asking the reporter what caused the offense?  No harm, no foul.  At worst, the reporter is a little embarrassed about having to quote what was said.  But again, so what?"

  If the thing they're offended by isn't actually something against the convention's standards of behaviour, you've just avoided having to accuse an innocent person of doing something wrong.  And if the report is something serious, you now know what level of sanction is appropriate.  Hopefully, convention staff would treat a rape or death threat more seriously than someone complaining about a person making a joke about menstruation.



> I've seen several posters say they wouldn't tolerate that behavior, but  I've seen next to nothing about cases where they actually saw it and  did something about it




It happens.  One article that cites examples:  https://postmortemstudios.wordpress...-the-nicest-white-terrorists-youll-ever-meet/

​


----------



## Sadras

MechaPilot said:


> I'm going to say something that probably won't earn me any friends, but I feel it needs saying.
> 
> Several posters have said they wouldn't tolerate harassment, or assault/battery, in their presence.  Good, that's as it should be.
> 
> However, people can say (or type) anything.  My experience with harassment in gaming involved no one at the table standing up for me, despite my extreme distress.




Your mentioning of extreme distress reminds me of an incident, some years back, where one player (A) critiqued the way another player (B) roleplayed his character. The latter character blew up at this, obviously suffering some distress and vowed not to play at the table again with that player. I, as DM, obviously tried to calm this situation down but was unsuccessful.

Thing is, despite the actions of A not being correct table etiquette, I knew the sensitivity levels of player B as he was a long time friend. Player B would define player's A's actions as harassment whereas the rest of the table enjoyed a good banter, teasing, challenge. Honestly our table was better off with player B leaving.

The same thing I imagine can happen at a table consisting of predominantly male players where the female player might be, naturally so, overly sensitive to the male players' jabs and she could easily suffer distress. In my scenario above all participants were males. As DM I take on the role of peacemaker but at the same time I expect a certain level of thick-skinness from the players at our table. Side/snide/cheeky remarks are very much a given with us. It is tricky, one person's extreme distress could be another person's casual shrug.

Besides matching playstyles, I believe players at a gaming table need to have similar temperaments and personalities. I don't believe this is punted enough. Everyone talks about similar playstyles - especially between DM and players, but many forget there are other aspects which make people a good fit for a gaming table.

Apologies if I have derailed the topic somewhat.


----------



## MechaPilot

Sadras said:


> Your mentioning of extreme distress reminds me of an incident, some years back, where one player (A) critiqued the way another player (B) roleplayed his character. The latter character blew up at this, obviously suffering some distress and vowed not to play at the table again with that player. I, as DM, obviously tried to calm this situation down but was unsuccessful.
> 
> Thing is, despite the actions of A not being correct table etiquette, I knew the sensitivity levels of player B as he was a long time friend. Player B would define player's A's actions as harassment whereas the rest of the table enjoyed a good banter, teasing, challenge. Honestly our table was better off with player B leaving.
> 
> The same thing I imagine can happen at a table consisting of predominantly male players where the female player might be, naturally so, overly sensitive to the male players' jabs and she could easily suffer distress. In my scenario above all participants were males. As DM I take on the role of peacemaker but at the same time I expect a certain level of thick-skinness from the players at our table. Side/snide/cheeky remarks are very much a given with us. It is tricky, one person's extreme distress could be another person's casual shrug.
> 
> Besides matching playstyles, I believe players at a gaming table need to have similar temperaments and personalities. I don't believe this is punted enough. Everyone talks about similar playstyles - especially between DM and players, but many forget there are other aspects which make people a good fit for a gaming table.
> 
> Apologies if I have derailed the topic somewhat.




I was in extreme distress because PC rape was suddenly thrust upon me (I would NOT have joined the group if I had forewarning that rape was allowed content in their games), and the DM not only expected but pushed me to actually RP the rape scene, describing in graphic detail what was happening to my character as I sat in stunned and horrified silence, and as the other players just watched the scene unfold before them.  I can honestly say that it was the most terrifying, humiliating, and degrading experience in my entire life, and I wouldn't put good-natured ribbing or a critique of how I roleplay a character anywhere near that experience on a scale of discomfort or distress.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> The same thing I imagine can happen at a table consisting of predominantly male players where the female player might be, naturally so, overly sensitive to the male players' jabs and she could easily suffer distress.




I think the dynamic you're discussing here does happen, but I want to point something out....

Again - we describe this as the female being "overly sensitive".  She is the one that is not avereage or correct.  Why not say that her sensitivities are fine, but the men are coarse, insensitive, thoughtless, negligent, or "naturally" blind to how they are being problematic?  

Calling it "naturally so" actually makes it worse - now it is not just a personal foible of the one woman, but it is now "natural" for women to be "overly sensitive".  How is that not a sexist stereotype?

I don't think this is a derailing at all, but an excellent example of how unfortunately insidious some of the issues are.  It pervades even our wording choice, if we are not actively thinking about them.  It is *assumed* in how we construct statements.


----------



## Gradine

Springheel said:


> My point was in response to Gradine's claim that if someone feels they were harassed, then they clearly WERE harassed.  I think that's wrong for the reasons I stated.




Funny story, but this is actually true; at least as far as harassment in the workplace goes. Harassment, as a legal term (which I think, broadly, that is what we are referring to in this thread), has some pretty specific definitions. Again, at least as far as the workplace is concerned, if a person states they were being harassed, then legally they were being harassed. Can't speak for non-workplace settings.

Of course, that isn't at all what I said. What I said that if a person feels they were being _"terrorized"_ then they were, in fact, being terrorized, which is true. Terror is a personal, emotional reaction to an external stimuli; terror in particular is an immediate, visceral reaction. Once does not _choose_ to be terrorized. Either you believe a person when they tell you their emotional state or you are accusing them of some form of dishonesty. There is no middle ground there.

Now, whether such external stimuli was intentional or unintentional "terrorism" is probably worth discussing. Also worth discussing is what, if anything, we should be doing about it; either at a institutional level (be that con organizers; FLGS owners; forum mods; DMs; etc.) or at a personal, social level (ie; everyone involved in gaming attempting to change the _culture_ that breeds/tolerates such behavior).


----------



## Springheel

> Of course, that isn't at all what I said. What I said that if a person feels they were being "terrorized" then they were, in fact, being terrorized, which is true.




Unless you're just making a tautology, you seem to be implying that some form of terrorism actually happened.  Do you want to address the specific example I referenced?  The women heard "menstrual", but the other person actually said "minstrel".  Is using the word minstrel to be considered "unintentional terrorism" now?


----------



## Gradine

Springheel said:


> Unless you're just making a tautology, you seem to be implying that some form of terrorism actually happened.  Do you want to address the specific example I referenced?  The women heard "menstrual", but the other person actually said "minstrel".  Is using the word minstrel to be considered "unintentional terrorism" now?




 You seem to be confusing "offense" with "terror". I was addressing another poster's skepticism regarding a "culture of terrorism"; you appear to have lumped me into the "Don't ever ask follow-up questions to complaints" crowd, which I don't personally agree with. 

A misunderstanding based on mis-hearing someone else is something reasonable adults should be able to get cleared up with little issue. Offering unsolicited comments regarding a woman's physical appearance who you do not, personally, know, is "unintentional terrorism". You are probably not intending to make the woman uncomfortable; the likelihood is high that you actually are. Exactly how uncomfortable (or filled with actual terror) a woman on the receiving end of such a compliment depends entirely on their own past experiences (or stories they've been privy to). Some might take the compliment well. Others might take it horribly. 

The reasonable and respectful table would:
A) Make it clear to all players at the table that their voices will be heard and their boundaries respected.
and
B) Actually hear their voices and respect their boundaries.

That these very simple acts of common courtesy have apparently been too much to ask for for decades is a big part of the problem. That this lack of respect has extended to larger public spaces (see: game stores and cons) has made entering those spaces a legitimately risky proposition for a certain type of gamer.


----------



## MechaPilot

Springheel said:


> The women heard "menstrual", but the other person actually said "minstrel".  Is using the word minstrel to be considered "unintentional terrorism" now?




Did hearing "minstrel" as "menstrual" cause the women to feel terror?  While the word menstrual is inappropriate in certain situations (I know I'd never use it around most guys, or over a meal) hearing it certainly wouldn't cause me to feel terror.  Depending on the context I misheard it in, I might even think it was funny, especially if a DM was describing a minstrel's lyrical performance and I heard something like "The menstrual's flow was elegant and smooth with a satirical bite that drew cheers from the tavern's patrons."

In all frankness, I've almost never heard of unintentionally causing terror in another person.  Maybe if you were fleeing a burning building and someone saw you running and screaming right at them, then I could see it.  As for unintentional offense, I've heard of that quite often (and I've even been guilty of it myself on more than one occasion).


----------



## Springheel

> You seem to be confusing "offense" with "terror". I was addressing another poster's skepticism regarding a "culture of terrorism"; you appear to have lumped me into the "Don't ever ask follow-up questions to complaints" crowd, which I don't personally agree with.




It's possible we're crossing our wires then.   Though I'm not sure what the difference is between "offense" and "terror" in this context.  Doesn't your statement work equally well with either one?

" if a person feels they were being "offended" then they were, in fact, being offended, which is true. Offense is a personal, emotional reaction to an external stimuli... Either you believe a person when they tell you their emotional state or you are accusing them of some form of dishonesty. There is no middle ground there."

If your only point is that when someone describes a subjective experience, they are either actually experiencing that experience, or they are lying, then you'll get no disagreement from me.

My dispute is with people who think that someone else's subjective experience should, without question, result in other people being sanctioned.



> Offering unsolicited comments regarding a woman's physical appearance who you do not, personally, know, is "unintentional terrorism".




I have a problem with the term "terrorism" in this context.  Terrorism has a specific definition, which is not synonymous with "causing terror" (and even as you're using the term, it only applies if the comment actually caused the woman to feel "terror").



> The reasonable and respectful table would:
> A) Make it clear to all players at the table that their voices will be heard and their boundaries respected.
> and
> B) Actually hear their voices and respect their boundaries.




100% agree.

​


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> /snip
> 
> If the thing they're offended by isn't actually something against the convention's standards of behaviour, you've just avoided having to accuse an innocent person of doing something wrong.  And if the report is something serious, you now know what level of sanction is appropriate.  Hopefully, convention staff would treat a rape or death threat more seriously than someone complaining about a person making a joke about menstruation.
> 
> 
> It happens.  One article that cites examples:  https://postmortemstudios.wordpress...-the-nicest-white-terrorists-youll-ever-meet/
> 
> ​




Do you really think that if someone was threatened with rape, their complaint would be a simple "I feel harassed"?  Would the person making the complaint likely not mention the rape threat?  How likely is it that two people, making a harassment complaint, one where they overheard the word menstrual and the other after receiving a rape threat would make the same complaint?

OTOH, if someone comes to you and says, "Hey, those guys at the table are being really offensive, can you make them stop?" do you really need to find out more information?  Do you really need to know what they said?  And, if you do, why?


----------



## Springheel

> Do you really think that if someone was threatened with rape, their complaint would be a simple "I feel harassed"? Would the person making the complaint likely not mention the rape threat?




I don't presume I can predict exactly how someone might react in that situation.  Can you?  



> OTOH, if someone comes to you and says, "Hey, those guys at the table are being really offensive, can you make them stop?" do you really need to find out more information? Do you really need to know what they said? And, if you do, why?




If I'm someone who is expected to enforce the rules of the convention, then yes, of course I need to find out more information, for exactly the reasons that have already been discussed ad nauseum.

If you don't understand or don't care that there are people who will report completely harmless comments as "offensive", then I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Do you really think that if someone was threatened with rape, their complaint would be a simple "I feel harassed"?  Would the person making the complaint likely not mention the rape threat?




Okay, here's a terribly important point, given to me in harassment and rape crisis training to work con security:  DO NOT expect the victim to behave in what *you* think is a rational manner.  The victim of rape, assault, or even harassment has *a lot of crap* going on in their heads.  Their judgement may well be compromised.  Their memory of events may not be what you think it should be.  

This is a major issue of how even police react to reports of rape.  Officers (even trained ones) frequently discount reports because the report doesn't follow their personal expectations.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> I don't presume I can predict exactly how someone might react in that situation.  Can you?




Exactly?  No, that's true, I can't.  But, I can predict with a pretty darn high degree of certainty that someone who is bringing a harassment complaint to me is most likely doing so because they are upset about something that was said or done.  And, I'm pretty darn sure that someone who has received a rape threat is going to react differently than someone who overheard the word "menstrual".  Granted, not 100%.  But, I'm pretty willing to trust my gut on this one.




> If I'm someone who is expected to enforce the rules of the convention, then yes, of course I need to find out more information, for exactly the reasons that have already been discussed ad nauseum.
> 
> If you don't understand or don't care that there are people who will report completely harmless comments as "offensive", then I don't know what else to say.




What reasons?  So you can judge if the person was "really" harassed?  That the comment(s) pass some sort of "harassment meter" level where action should be taken?  

No.  As someone who is expected to enforce the rules of the convention, you have one job and one job only.  To ensure that whatever is happening doesn't happen again.  Full stop.  It isn't your job to determine "guilt" or anything else.  Your job is to make sure that things go as smoothly as possible.  Which means, yup, there is a chance you might mistakenly accuse someone of harassment that wasn't doing anything.  Fair enough.  But, again, all you are going to do is tell that person to stop doing whatever it is that they were doing.  "Hey guys, we received a complaint about this table.  Please remember you are in a public space and you have to watch what you are saying.  Keep it grandma friendly please."

How is that a problem?  Even if the guys weren't actually saying anything offensive, at worst, they are a bit embarrassed and possibly a bit confused.  They'll get over it.  They'll get over it a heck of a lot faster than someone who actually was harassed and you then spent time questioning them about the experience, forcing them to explain why they are offended and why you should do something about it.  Particularly if you decide to not bother doing anything at all because whatever their complaint was, you felt it didn't warrant further action.


----------



## random.brown

Whoops, double post!

Hope that didn't trigger anyone or anything...


----------



## random.brown

Hussar said:


> They'll get over it.




So will your hypothetical delicate flower who heard some mean things from some big meanie a few tables over and whined like child to the first authority figure he or she could find.

Find a new hobby if this one is so full of offense.

as always,

I DON'T CARE.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Thank you for identifying yourself.


----------



## billd91

random.brown said:


> So will your hypothetical delicate flower who heard some mean things from some big meanie a few tables over and whined like child to the first authority figure he or she could find.
> 
> Find a new hobby if this one is so full of offense.
> 
> as always,
> 
> I DON'T CARE.




Feel free to not participate in the thread.


----------



## Sadras

MechaPilot said:


> I was in extreme distress because PC rape was suddenly thrust upon me (I would NOT have joined the group if I had forewarning that rape was allowed content in their games), and the DM not only expected but pushed me to actually RP the rape scene, describing in graphic detail what was happening to my character as I sat in stunned and horrified silence, and as the other players just watched the scene unfold before them.  I can honestly say that it was the most terrifying, humiliating, and degrading experience in my entire life, and I wouldn't put good-natured ribbing or a critique of how I roleplay a character anywhere near that experience on a scale of discomfort or distress.




That is INSANE! Not that this justifies it by any means, but I'm trying to wrap my head around something like this happening, what age was the DM and your co-players and how many years ago was this? Surely these guys have matured since then?
Apologies if this has already been answered earlier. I did try skimming through the thread, page spotting, but I missed this story.
As DMs we worry about how a character death will affect the player. PC Rape, humiliation and such like is pretty out there.

Recently one of the characters was kidnapped and worked over by the bad guys to obtain information about the party. The entire interrogation was off-screen and no details were given. When rescued, only the mechanical effects of the interrogation and some light description was given i.e fatigued, no condition to fight, bloodied and bruised.
When we were younger we might have dealt with this scenario in a little more detail - maturity, enjoyment of all and importance of pacing the story allows us to speed past scenario's like this, where the only thing that was considered was the information obtained. In fact we played out the entire rescue with 25 cards I specifically made, their randomness brought about the story that evolved from the rescue. So the 'bad stuff' was completely glossed over.

No damage was inflicted upon the player psyche or how that character was viewed. Truthfully I cannot take credit that I had all of this in mind when I decided on that course of action with the captured PC. This conversation now with you though, has made me more aware of it, so that is a positive.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> I think the dynamic you're discussing here does happen, but I want to point something out....
> 
> Again - we describe this as the female being "overly sensitive".  She is the one that is not avereage or correct.  Why not say that her sensitivities are fine, but the men are coarse, insensitive, thoughtless, negligent, or "naturally" blind to how they are being problematic?
> 
> Calling it "naturally so" actually makes it worse - now it is not just a personal foible of the one woman, but it is now "natural" for women to be "overly sensitive".  How is that not a sexist stereotype?
> 
> I don't think this is a derailing at all, but an excellent example of how unfortunately insidious some of the issues are.  It pervades even our wording choice, if we are not actively thinking about them.  It is *assumed* in how we construct statements.




I generally agree. And perhaps because I'm drawing on my experiences which can be completely anecdotal, but if I compare my wife, my friend's wives/partners and their friends - they analyse, more so than guys, every word uttered in their presence. They are offended much easier - not necessarily by the guys but by other females more so. This is not a slight against the opposite sex this is just my observation. My experience has shown that men brush off comments much easier than women. Again I mention this is obviously not the case with every woman or man and it is my experience with the women and men I know.

Secondly can you honestly not imagine a single female with a group of five male gamers, how much more sensitive she would be than if she were with a group of 5 females. And again I'm speaking in broad terms. I certainly am a lot more self-aware/sensitive in the reverse scenario. It is a natural human reaction.

So when I made the comment 'naturally so' I was imagining a female gamer at a male dominated table.

You make mention of the words 'average' and 'correct' - what is the average amongst 5 thoughtless men and one female?


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, I've seen some of the behavior women get subjected to in comic and hobby shops.  In one, I remember a woman mistakenly walking into the game store- it was right next door to a salon- and @5' into the place, she realized her error as the store went dead quiet and every guy (that I could see) in the store was staring at her.




This has actually happened to my wife, when I asked her to pick up my goodies at our local comic store. She was very flattered and we laughed about it afterwards, that she could have her choice of nerds


----------



## Mallus

random.brown said:


> So will your hypothetical delicate flower who heard some mean things from some big meanie a few tables over and whined like child to the first authority figure he or she could find.
> 
> Find a new hobby if this one is so full of offense.



If this was all we were talking about, I'd agree with you.

But it's not.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> I generally agree. And perhaps because I'm drawing on my experiences which can be completely anecdotal, but if I compare my wife, my friend's wives/partners and their friends - they analyse, more so than guys, every word uttered in their presence.




Maybe they are.  Or maybe they are just *noticing* more, or just *speaking* on their offense more - which are different.  But, either way, the phrasing was not "more" sensitive, but *overly* sensitive - implying that was something wrong with the level of sensitivity that they were showing. 

And so again, I ask - why phrase it that way?  Why not instead note that the guys are jerks and thick as bricks to the amount of habitual sexism in their words?  Why are the women *wrong* or somehow excessive to be as sensitive as they are?  Answer that, please.

For extra bonus points, answer it in a way that doesn't look like a rationalization to cover that men just don't want to have to care.



> This is not a slight against the opposite sex this is just my observation.




It being your observation doesn't make it not a slight.  If you set up a spring-loaded toy to go off when your co-worker opens a desk drawer, and when it goes off it pokes out their eye, the fact that you only meant it as a joke doesn't change the fact that they are out an eye.  Your intent doesn't really change the impact.  




> My experience has shown that men brush off comments much easier than women. Again I mention this is obviously not the case with every woman or man and it is my experience with the women and men I know.




Men are in a relative position of power.  They have greater social status and security, and so can afford slights more.

Except when they can't.  I make a comment about how maybe men are insensitive, thick-headed boors, and... well, that doesn't go over well, does it?  That's not brushed off - instead there's defense against it.  Interesting...



> You make mention of the words 'average' and 'correct' - what is the average amongst 5 thoughtless men and one female?




I was hoping you'd ask that.  I'll ask another question in response:  What's the average among white men and _the rest of the population of the US_?  Hint: White men make up about 30% of the population of the US.  

I mentioned both average and correctness because we have choices to make.  We have to choose at various times what matters more - conforming to an average, or holding to some form of moral/ethical correctness whatever the average says.  After my noting that they are *not* the majority of the population, the white men reading this may be thinking that the average may not be as great a choice as it may have seemed a few moments before.   The average supports them only in local groups, not in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## random.brown

Perhaps my incredulity stems from my personal experiences.

I've attended gaming conventions and been active in gaming groups and events at stores in the Denver area for over 25 years, and I've just never seen anything even close to harassment. I bring my sons and daughters to events confident they'll be no issues.

So I don't like the idea of someone running to an organizer/tourney official/store owner and expecting to get a person "spoken to" or worse purely on the basis of an accusation, with no confirmation or corroboration.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> Maybe they are.  Or maybe they are just *noticing* more, or just *speaking* on their offense more - which are different.  But, either way, the phrasing was not "more" sensitive, but *overly* sensitive - implying that was something wrong with the level of sensitivity that they were showing.




You're absolutely right, I couldn't remember if I had used the word 'overly' or 'more' so I went back to check. 'Overly' does have a negative connotation. I should have used the word 'more'



> Men are in a relative position of power.  They have greater social status and security, and so can afford slights more.
> 
> Except when they can't.  I make a comment about how maybe men are insensitive, thick-headed boors, and... well, that doesn't go over well, does it?  That's not brushed off - instead there's defense against it.  Interesting...




Actually I don't disagree with the fact that men in general are insensitive, thick-headed boors...etc. Where in my post did you believe I implied otherwise or defended it? In fact my defence is based on the fact that generally men are indeed insensitive and thick-headed boors...etc



> I was hoping you'd ask that.  I'll ask another question in response:  What's the average among white men and _the rest of the population of the US_?  Hint: White men make up about 30% of the population of the US.
> 
> I mentioned both average and correctness because we have choices to make.  We have to choose at various times what matters more - conforming to an average, or holding to some form of moral/ethical correctness whatever the average says.  After my noting that they are *not* the majority of the population, the white men reading this may be thinking that the average may not be as great a choice as it may have seemed a few moments before.   The average supports them only in local groups, not in the grand scheme of things.




I'm asking you the average at a gaming table, a specific environment, majority being males. Opening it up to the general populace, a certain demographic or USA defeats that purpose as now you have a multitude of environments, culture/background diversity and the like. We have a Jew and a German at our table, the things that fly at our table are acceptable at our table certainly not for the general public. Very much politically incorrect behind closed doors.

Yes as you said it supports them in local groups, not in the grand scheme of things. I would think it naïve if you believe that the majority of male dominated gaming groups somehow all behave 'correctly' (politically correct). They don't, I would put money on that. Add a female presence into the mix at a boorish table, and the general sexist remarks have to be toned down out of respect.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> You're absolutely right, I couldn't remember if I had used the word 'overly' or 'more' so I went back to check. 'Overly' does have a negative connotation. I should have used the word 'more'




I know.  That's the point.  This is the essence of casual sexism, I'm afraid.  




> Actually I don't disagree with the fact that men in general are insensitive, thick-headed boors...etc. Where in my post did you believe I implied otherwise or defended it? In fact my defence is based on the fact that generally men are indeed insensitive and thick-headed boors...etc




This arose through the choice of "overly".  It is an implicit positioning  - the women are overly sensitive, so what the men are doing is okay.  If we were acknowledging that what the men are doing is not okay, then we'd not be saying the women are overly sensitive to feel it.  If men are being jerks, people of normal sensitivity will note it.



> I'm asking you the average at a gaming table, a specific environment, majority being males. Opening it up to the general populace, a certain demographic or USA defeats that purpose as now you have a multitude of environments, culture/background diversity and the like.




Are you going to claim that how men treat women in gaming contexts, the attitudes they bring to the table arise *only* at the gaming table?  I submit quite the opposite - folks are bringing attitudes and habits established largely away from the gaming table, and bringing them to game.  We cannot expect to change that larger context all on our own, but we must acknowledge it, and understand how it works, as we attempt to make localized areas where people are expected to behave differently.



> We have a Jew and a German at our table...




And... the Godwin approaches...



> the things that fly at our table are acceptable at our table certainly not for the general public. Very much politically incorrect behind closed doors.




And how did you come by the social contract about what was okay, and what wasn't?  Think about that carefully for a moment before you answer, please.



> I would think it naïve if you believe that the majority of male dominated gaming groups somehow all behave 'correctly' (politically correct).




Yes.  That's kind of the point of the discussion.  We behave poorly.  We behave as if we don't have to care about large swaths of people.

The categorization of it as "political" correctness, however, is dismissive.  This is about something more like *actual* correctness and proper behavior towards your fellow human beings.  You have a person at the table, not a candidate for office.  They have feelings, not just political motivations.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> I know.  That's the point.  This is the essence of casual sexism, I'm afraid.
> 
> Are you going to claim that how men treat women in gaming contexts, the attitudes they bring to the table arise *only* at the gaming table?  I submit quite the opposite - folks are bringing attitudes and habits established largely away from the gaming table, and bringing them to game.  We cannot expect to change that larger context all on our own, but we must acknowledge it, and understand how it works, as we attempt to make localized areas where people are expected to behave differently.




Agreed.



> And... the Godwin approaches...




I actually wasnt sure what you meant so I googled the term Godwin. I'm certainly not going down that path  



> And how did you come by the social contract about what was okay, and what wasn't?  Think about that carefully for a moment before you answer, please.




I don't know really. I guess it starts with hot topics having been discussed, debated, argued over at the table or away from it, and each one's personal barriers pushed, with the general ribbing thrown in and I imagine the participants become less sensitive to the shocker comments. What isn't ok would be just straight up abuse or harrassment of a person where it actually affects the table or the person negatively. Which is why I mentioned in my first post that personalities, temperament etc matter just as much if not more than agreeable playstyles and is often overlooked.           
The tricky part is to figure out such boundaries for someone new entering the table dynamic - will they fit in, will they be offended, will everyone else be relaxed or have to tiptoe/watch-ones-self.  



> Yes.  That's kind of the point of the discussion.  We behave poorly.  We behave as if we don't have to care about large swaths of people.




True.



> The categorization of it as "political" correctness, however, is dismissive.  This is about something more like *actual* correctness and proper behavior towards your fellow human beings.  You have a person at the table, not a candidate for office.  They have feelings, not just political motivations.




I just want to point out the term 'politically correct' is not only associated with a candidate for office.


----------



## MechaPilot

Sadras said:


> That is INSANE!




I know.  My initial reaction was "wait, is this really happening?"  Unfortunately, it actually was happening, and then came the humiliation, the degradation, the fear, and eventually the rage that helped me grab my bag and scramble out of there as quickly as I could.




Sadras said:


> Not that this justifies it by any means, but. . .




I'm going to pause here for a moment.  You are right that it is not justified.  Not at all.  None of the answers to the questions that follow the "but" will ever in any way justify or excuse what they did.  The answers might have educational or explanatory value though, which is why I will answer them.




Sadras said:


> . . . I'm trying to wrap my head around something like this happening, what age was the DM and your co-players and how many years ago was this? Surely these guys have matured since then?
> Apologies if this has already been answered earlier. I did try skimming through the thread, page spotting, but I missed this story.




I haven't really gotten into the specifics before other than how I felt while it was going on.  I don't particularly like to dwell on it, which I hope is something you can understand.

There were four of them, the DM and three players.  The DM seemed like he was the eldest of the group, but I didn't ask what their ages were.  However, based on their appearance, that all of them drove, that more than half of them were smokers who didn't express that they couldn't buy their own cigarettes, and the fact that the DM had his own place (it was a trailer in a mobile home park, which is a common "starter home" in that area), I'm going to ballpark the entire group somewhere in the 16 to 25 age range, with at least two or three of them being 18+.

I was, I believe, 15 at the time.  It happened in the first couple years of my being in high school.  I know I was driving at the time (I certainly drove away from there faster than the speed limit allowed), but I think I might have had my learner's permit and not a formal driver's license.  So that would make it a little over twenty years ago now.

As for whether they have matured since then, I would hope so.  However, I doubt it, and I have no desire to ever meet any of them again to find out.  I stopped going to the hobby shop where I met them simply because I didn't want to run into them ever again, and because I was concerned that they may have shared the story with some of the staff at the store, and I would have been mortified if any of the staff brought it up while I was shopping there.




Sadras said:


> As DMs we worry about how a character death will affect the player. PC Rape, humiliation and such like is pretty out there.




I would have rather had my character just killed outright.  I actually left her sheet there when I fled.  I realized that after a few days.  However, I didn't lament the loss.  I would have never been able to play her again anyway without recalling what happened.  I almost quit playing D&D altogether after that.  It was only the good times I'd had playing with friends before then that encouraged me not to just give it up for good.  Despite deciding to stick with the hobby, it took me about a month or two to even get up the will to start looking for another group to play with.  And that took a while, especially since I'd also lost the hobby shop where I could have hung out to look for another group.




Sadras said:


> Recently one of the characters was kidnapped and worked over by the bad guys to obtain information about the party. The entire interrogation was off-screen and no details were given. When rescued, only the mechanical effects of the interrogation and some light description was given i.e fatigued, no condition to fight, bloodied and bruised.
> When we were younger we might have dealt with this scenario in a little more detail - maturity, enjoyment of all and importance of pacing the story allows us to speed past scenario's like this, where the only thing that was considered was the information obtained. In fact we played out the entire rescue with 25 cards I specifically made, their randomness brought about the story that evolved from the rescue. So the 'bad stuff' was completely glossed over.
> 
> No damage was inflicted upon the player psyche or how that character was viewed. Truthfully I cannot take credit that I had all of this in mind when I decided on that course of action with the captured PC. This conversation now with you though, has made me more aware of it, so that is a positive.




That sounds like a good way to handle it.  In general, whenever a character is going to be abused in some way, I prefer to gloss over it.  As a DM, I've had capture scenarios where PCs have been whipped viciously (usually as punishment for a failed escape attempt), but I never RP it.  I usually just tell the player what the aftereffects are, if any.  As a good example, I ran an adventure where the party was captured.  They attempted to escape, and failed.  When they were caught, I just told them "The guards whip you for your 'insolence' before dumping you back in your cell.  It takes a couple days for you to recover enough to make another escape attempt."


----------



## Hussar

Let's not forget here too, we're talking about harassment.  You don't actually have to say anything to someone to harass them.  When I was in the armed forces (reserves), we had to do all sorts of harassment lectures and one of the things that came up was leering.  They defined leering (because, hey, this is the army and they define everything) as staring at someone for more than 7 seconds.  And we all kind of laughed and thought it was a bit stupid.

But, then we tried it out.  Stare at someone and do a silent 7 count.  That's a hell of a long time to look at someone.  I can totally see that as making someone very, very uncomfortable.  And, at least in some contexts, it is considered harassment.  Now, it would be absolutely impossible to prove.  There is pretty much zero chance of anyone other than the person being stared at noticing this. 

So, what good is it to "investigate"?  You're not going to find any witnesses, and the person doing it certainly isn't going to admit to it.  It's the same as the guy whispering rape threats in the cosplay girl's ear during a picture taking.  Zero witnesses, zero proof.  

The idea that you have to "investigate" and "determine the truth" is ludicrous.  That's NOT what harassment policies are for.  The whole point of the policy is to stop the behaviour.  End of story.  Which means, from time to time, someone might get yelled at for no reason.  Sorry, but, too bad.  That's the price we have to pay because the alternative is the litany of horror stories we've seen in this thread alone.

If this actually wasn't a problem.  If it was entirely made up.  If the hobby community was actually 100% warm and welcoming and non-discriminitory, how do you explain the fact that after 40 years in the public zeitgeist, TV cartoons, movies, and whatnot, the hobby is still overwhelmingly white males?  Comic book collectors aren't.  Cosplay certainly isn't.  Even board gaming and video gaming isn't.  But RPG gaming?  Major sausage fest.

If it isn't the insular nature of the participants, then what is it?


----------



## random.brown

Hussar said:


> I can totally see that as making someone very, very uncomfortable.




This isn't harassment.



> Which means, from time to time, someone might get yelled at for no reason. Sorry, but, too bad.




So she-said/he-said automatically trumps innocent until proven guilty?   Nonsense.  This turns into false accusations for no reason other than the supposed "victim" felt like exercising some consequence-free power. You also made a leap from "leering = harassment" (which is ridiculous) to "horror stories."  Way to move the goalposts.



> If the hobby community was actually 100% warm and welcoming and non-discriminitory, how do you explain the fact that after 40 years in the public zeitgeist, TV cartoons, movies, and whatnot, the hobby is still overwhelmingly white males?




So for any field of endeavor women don't want to participate in, the reason is automatically because men are threatening the women? Nonsense.

The vast majority of anglers, elk hunters, and fly-fishers are men too--I guess the male fish must be leering at the ladies?

#StopFishSexism


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

random.brown said:


> This isn't harassment.



For the benefit of all the ladies present, by all means explain why.


----------



## random.brown

sanishiver said:


> For the benefit of all the ladies present, by all means explain why.




Why do you think women need a simple concept explained?  Do you consider women unintelligent, or too limited to understand basic legal concepts?  You think the ladies present don't know what a dictionary is?

There is no epidemic, no conspiracy, no systemic, continued unwanted actions towards women who may wish to game that would make them so fearful that they _couldn't simply avoid those that make them uncomfortable_ and find another place/way to enjoy their hobby.


----------



## Gradine

Just so we can move on from this pointless diversion:
http://www.laharassmentfirm.com/sexual-harassment/leering-gestures-staring/


----------



## random.brown

Gradine said:


> Just so we can move on from this pointless diversion:
> http://www.laharassmentfirm.com/sexual-harassment/leering-gestures-staring/




Ahhh, so when you play rpgs _AT WORK_ and your co-workers leer and stare at you, wolf-whistle, or undress you with their eyes, you have a legitimate claim for a sexual harassment tort.

In California.

Well thank goodness people can choose to game wherever they want, and build gaming groups of their own, or shop at other stores!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Major sausage fest.




Weisswurst Fest.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> This isn't harassment.




Actually, "leering" is one action that has been defined as harassment in the UCMJ, many state codes, many major corporate codes of conduct, and has been cited- and upheld- as an element in creating a hostile work environment in several EEOC lawsuits- that's Federal law, applicable to all 50 states and US territories.

Furthermore, under many such codes, the person making the claim need not be the target of the action to proceed and even win at trial- mere witnessing or awareness of the conduct is sufficient.

So, yes, leering can get you disciplined for sexual harassment across the USA.  

In addition, actions deemed heinous or persistent enough AWAY from the workplace may be considered in hostile workplace cases.  They may also get you sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or even run you afoul of criminal stalking laws.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

random.brown said:


> Why do you think women need a simple concept explained?  Do you consider women unintelligent, or too limited to understand basic legal concepts?  You think the ladies present don't know what a dictionary is?



I think every single woman reading the thread is absolutely capable of determining when she is being harassed, and none of them need a dictionary or a refresher on law do it. 

This is because in social situations it's not a matter of law that determines if what a woman is feeling is true or not. 

So I say again, for the benefit of all the women who are participating or otherwise following along, please explain why.



> There is no epidemic, no conspiracy, no systemic, continued unwanted actions towards women who may wish to game that would make them so fearful that they _couldn't simply avoid those that make them uncomfortable_ and find another place/way to enjoy their hobby.



That's a good example of male privilege.  

It sounds like you are saying that harassment is so rare, that if a woman experiences it (we should really be using the word "female", since underage gamers experience harassment just like adults do), it's simply a matter of moving on, because the odds are everything will be better at the next joint down the road?

You ought to read the thread from the start. The world you inhabit, with regard to the experiences of female gamers, is an imaginary one.


----------



## Nylanfs

random.brown said:


> So she-said/he-said automatically trumps innocent until proven guilty?   Nonsense.  This turns into false accusations for no reason other than the supposed "victim" felt like exercising some consequence-free power. You also made a leap from "leering = harassment" (which is ridiculous) to "horror stories."  Way to move the goalposts.




A) NOT a court of law and B) *Deal with it*

There is noticing somebody who looks good and leering which is unwanted attention which is harassment.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## random.brown

sanishiver said:


> That's a good example of male privilege.




Men and women have equal rights in all western societies. Only a sexist would think that a woman at a game store on the receiving end of a cat-call would be helpless to do anything about it without the intervention of some other authority.

Did your time machine just drop you here from 1894 London?  Why do you hate women?


----------



## random.brown

Nylanfs said:


> *Deal with it*




That's exactly the advice I'm giving to your hypothetical wilting flower in the Victorian London game store. We agree completely.


----------



## Nylanfs

So you have NO control over your actions?


----------



## random.brown

Nylanfs said:


> So you have NO control over your actions?




I know, right? Who would dare accuse a woman of being so out of control of herself and her environment that she couldn't simply tell some aping buffoon that her "eyes are up here?"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Clearly, we need another dose of monolith.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

random.brown said:


> Men and women have equal rights in all western societies.



No, they don't.

We're getting there. But we're not there yet. 

Is this your reasoning for why someone staring at a woman for seven seconds or so is not harassment? Because the law says so?



random.brown said:


> Only a sexist would think that a woman at a game store on the receiving end of a cat-call would be helpless to do anything about it without the intervention of some other authority.



Nobody said that all women are incapable of dealing with cat calls without resorting to asking for help. 

That's not the crux of what's being discussed here. (Again, it would help if you'd read the thread, and the various links.)

In terms of sexism, I hope you'll agree it would be sexist to say that cat calls are just part of life in gaming, just as it would be sexist to say it's a woman's job to deal with things like cat calls, no matter her age. 

After all, the men in the vicinity--as well as the boys who hope to grow up to be men worthy of the term--should be putting their fellow in place before the woman gets a word in edgewise, even if they don't know the guy.

But that's not what's happening. Enough so that people are speaking out. 

And because it's not happening, women feel powerless, isolated and alone. 

Why? Because if the men in the room didn't do anything when the cat calls took place, how does it follow they'll back her up if she stands up for herself, much less that they'll have her back if she's not comfortable with confrontation and asks for help?


----------



## Obryn

random.brown said:


> I know, right? Who would dare accuse a woman of being so out of control of herself and her environment that she couldn't simply tell some aping buffoon that her "eyes are up here?"



Why's it her job to do this instead of the dude just, you know, not staring at her boobs to begin with? 

Is that crazy? It doesn't seem crazy? What seems crazy is an argument along the lines of, "It's totally more respectful to stare at women and make them uncomfortable because otherwise you're not giving them a chance to tell you to cut it out." 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It isn't a binary thing; both options can coexist.  Ideally, a woman would be able to tell a man off...and a man could control himself so she wouldn't have to.

But we don't live in an ideal world.  So if for those women unable or unwilling to defend themselves- whatever the reason, be it youth, hypermodesty, being under a vow of silence, whatever- perhaps some of the more evolved among us can step up?


----------



## Obryn

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It isn't a binary thing; both options can coexist.  Ideally, a woman would be able to tell a man off...and a man could control himself so she wouldn't have to.
> 
> But we don't live in an ideal world.  So if for those women unable or unwilling to defend themselves- whatever the reason, be it youth, hypermodesty, being under a vow of silence, whatever- perhaps some of the more evolved among us can step up?



There's still a heavy element of... Victim blaming, I suppose, to this whole ridiculous "wilting flower" argument. And it's not the first time it's come up in these threads. 

Yes, many/most/whatever women are totally capable of handling themselves against a harasser. That doesn't excuse being a jackass, and places the responsibility for resolution straight on the victim rather than on the offender. 

It's downright insulting, couched in the language of respect the way it is. "I only punched you because I knew you could take it and I know you're not a wuss. Oh, it hurts? Toughen up, cupcake!"


----------



## Sadras

A High Court judge overseeing a rape case once said in his judgement "Had Rudyard Kipling known of this case at the time he wrote his poem _If_, he might have added the following: ‘And if you can control your body and your sexual urges, then you are a man, my son’.”


----------



## Eltab

OP: 
Just before I took over as DM for my HotDQ/Tiamat group, one of the players had to create a new character.  The DM placed her as a spy aboard the flying castle, trying to seduce Rezmir into talking secrets in her sleep.  (From which I concluded, falsely, that the new character was a member of the Harpers and trying to emulate James Bond.)  Then we found out Rezmir is also female.  What ensued was NOT hilarity.  To inflame the situation, IRL the player in question is Mom to another player and Aunt to the primary motor-mouth.  I realized that family dynamics were in play as well, but nobody else at table was enjoying the double-entendres.  The Mom player was visibly raising her hackles.

The next week, the motor-mouth came in early and I - with my DM hat on - had a talk with him.  He agreed to knock off the baloney (at-table, anyways, I have no idea what they did at home) and edit his character traits so the problem would not keep coming up.  When Mom and Son came in, I pulled Mom aside and let her know what had been discussed.  I also told her that _I_ was not comfortable with the double-entendres (disrespectful to her as a person, and uncomfortable as Mom in front of Son).  She claimed to be OK with what had happened and she was a big girl and could take care of herself.

Long story short: the disruption stopped, and the most disruptive character/player changed noticeably into a source of teamwork rather than friction.


----------



## Eltab

random.brown said:


> ...There is no epidemic, no conspiracy, no systemic, continued unwanted actions towards women...



We have to figure out how to separate (1) women who have a legit complaint about a man's behavior from (2) women who get the vapors at the slightest trigger.
This cannot be done accurately from a distance, in space or in time - definitely not from the other end of an Internet connection.

And the real folly here?  Raising young boys up to be Gentlemen is called 'oppression' and all sorts of vile insulting names.  
Yet all the troublesome conduct described upthread IS 'conduct unbecoming of a gentleman.'


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> A High Court judge overseeing a rape case once said in his judgement "Had Rudyard Kipling known of this case at the time he wrote his poem _If_, he might have added the following: ‘And if you can control your body and your sexual urges, then you are a man, my son’.”




It has been noted by people with greater understanding of psychology than I, that while rape has sexual aspects, it is not primarily driven by "sexual urge" in the common sense - it is instead more driven by an urge to exert power over another.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Obryn said:


> There's still a heavy element of... Victim blaming, I suppose, to this whole ridiculous "wilting flower" argument. And it's not the first time it's come up in these threads.
> 
> Yes, many/most/whatever women are totally capable of handling themselves against a harasser. That doesn't excuse being a jackass, and places the responsibility for resolution straight on the victim rather than on the offender.
> 
> It's downright insulting, couched in the language of respect the way it is. "I only punched you because I knew you could take it and I know you're not a wuss. Oh, it hurts? Toughen up, cupcake!"




I dare say that if he were in the position of being sexually harassed by a gay man with 50lbs more mass (much of it muscle) than himself, he might have a different position on the necessity of seeking help from the authorities.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> It has been noted by people with greater understanding of psychology than I, that while rape has sexual aspects, it is not primarily driven by "sexual urge" in the common sense - it is instead more driven by an urge to exert power over another.




Ah, despite it being a rape case, this comment was not made because of the alleged* rape but because he found it “totally unacceptable” for a man (the defendant) to have unprotected sex with a woman who was not his regular partner, especially knowing that she was HIV-positive. 

*Adding the word alleged because he wasn't convicted.


----------



## Umbran

Obryn said:


> Yes, many/most/whatever women are totally capable of handling themselves against a harasser. That doesn't excuse being a jackass, and places the responsibility for resolution straight on the victim rather than on the offender.




In addition, since when do we say it is okay to leave victims to their own devices?

There's someone there, who you could help at very little cost to yourself, but, nah, let's not bother?  That's what we're supposed to do?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, AFAIK, no Western society imposes a legal duty for a bystander to act- you have to have a position where it is your actual duty it intervene (peace officer, EMS worker, lifeguard, etc.) to be legally held accountable for failing to aid someone in distress.

But morally/ethically?  Most ethoi at least level opprobrium at those who respond to victimization with apathy and inaction.


----------



## Rottle

Personally I couldn't just turn my back on someone being harassed and live with my self afterward.   I have little respect for those who could, legal requirements be damned you help your fellow person if you see them in need.


----------



## Lord Twig

I've been reading through this thread and a previous one and there seems to be a lot of talking past one another.

By and large it seems that virtually everyone agrees on the important parts. Harassment does happen, it should not be tolerated, the targets are disproportionately female and the perpetrators are mostly white men. These seem like uncontroversial facts.

Now there are a few points that explains some of those facts. One, harassment happens, unfortunately, just about everywhere, so RPG gatherings would be no exception. And Two, white men are a majority of RPG players and females are a minority. So not only are there more potential harassers among white men, but also they have a position of strength as a majority group. Likewise, women, as a minority group are easier targets. Of course other than the demographic of RPG players none of this has anything to do specifically with role-playing games. The same could be said of sporting events, business conventions or political rallies.

The disagreement really comes in when people try to characterize the problem as either a systemic problem of RPG gatherings or that it is less common at RPG gatherings than any other gathering. I don't think we have any conclusive evidence either way. A study or survey would probably be a good idea if GenCon or some other large gaming convention would do it.

Based on my own personal experiences I would say that Gamer gatherings are no better or worse than any other. Of course I also believe that all gatherings dominated by males (of any race) needs to do better at respecting women. It is not a gamer problem or a RPG gamer problem, it is a societal problem that needs to be addressed.

In defense of white men (of which I am one) I will say that white men are no better or worse than any other group of people. If the roles are reversed women are no better than men are. Likewise any other race is no better or worse than whites. The problem is who has the power? Who has the majority? That's the group that has the problem. And right now it is white men that are in that position, so it is white men that have the problem.


----------



## Morrus

random.brown said:


> So will your hypothetical delicate flower who heard some mean things from some big meanie a few tables over and whined like child to the first authority figure he or she could find.
> 
> Find a new hobby if this one is so full of offense.
> 
> as always,
> 
> I DON'T CARE.




That's nice for you.  Please don't seek out threads you don't care about and declare your lack of caring. That has a name - it's called "threadcrapping".

Don't post in this thread again, please. Find a thread you do care about.


----------



## Hussar

Lord Twig said:


> I've been reading through this thread and a previous one and there seems to be a lot of talking past one another.
> 
> By and large it seems that virtually everyone agrees on the important parts. Harassment does happen, it should not be tolerated, the targets are disproportionately female and the perpetrators are mostly white men. These seem like uncontroversial facts.
> 
> Now there are a few points that explains some of those facts. One, harassment happens, unfortunately, just about everywhere, so RPG gatherings would be no exception. And Two, white men are a majority of RPG players and females are a minority. So not only are there more potential harassers among white men, but also they have a position of strength as a majority group. Likewise, women, as a minority group are easier targets. Of course other than the demographic of RPG players none of this has anything to do specifically with role-playing games. The same could be said of sporting events, business conventions or political rallies.
> 
> The disagreement really comes in when people try to characterize the problem as either a systemic problem of RPG gatherings or that it is less common at RPG gatherings than any other gathering. I don't think we have any conclusive evidence either way. A study or survey would probably be a good idea if GenCon or some other large gaming convention would do it.
> 
> Based on my own personal experiences I would say that Gamer gatherings are no better or worse than any other. Of course I also believe that all gatherings dominated by males (of any race) needs to do better at respecting women. It is not a gamer problem or a RPG gamer problem, it is a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> In defense of white men (of which I am one) I will say that white men are no better or worse than any other group of people. If the roles are reversed women are no better than men are. Likewise any other race is no better or worse than whites. The problem is who has the power? Who has the majority? That's the group that has the problem. And right now it is white men that are in that position, so it is white men that have the problem.




But, all of this may very well be true, but is 100% beside the point. 

It doesn't really matter one whit that the harassers in this case are mostly white men.  That's not the important part of the sentence.  The important part of the sentence is that women are being harassed in gaming, and the bystanders, who are predominantly white men, are doing virtually nothing about it.  And when ideas are proposed to do something about it, there's a large degree of push back because it isn't "fair".  AFAIC, race isn't really an issue here, other than I do think it does point rather strongly towards the idea that the RPG community is nowhere near as welcoming as it likes to think it is.

Between the idea of "investigate the claims to prove things" and the victim blaming, it's not really surprising that many women would not feel comfortable being able to make complaints.  "Oh, just go somewhere else" is 100% the WRONG answer.


----------



## Rygar

Lord Twig said:


> I've been reading through this thread and a previous one and there seems to be a lot of talking past one another.
> 
> By and large it seems that virtually everyone agrees on the important parts. Harassment does happen, it should not be tolerated, the targets are disproportionately female and the perpetrators are mostly white men. These seem like uncontroversial facts.




I wouldn't draw all of those conclusions.  The language in this thread is decidedly political and very clearly representing a group that has spent the last year and pursuing those guilty of wrongthink online and off,  including attempting to have them fired from their jobs.  It's very likely that there's more than a few people like myself who've avoided direct discussion of the statements you make above out of fear of reprisal if anything is determined to be wrongthink.

It's impossible to have a conversation on this topic because of political activism and the last year and a half of events related to it, so it's impossible to draw any conclusions.


----------



## JohnnyDavids13

I can agree with alot of stuff here. Victims aren't the problem. If someone is being harassed something needs to be done. You don't just throw people to the wolves or rather leave them in the pack of wolves just because it doesn't matter to you. If you can help in some way you should.


----------



## Lord Twig

Hussar said:


> But, all of this may very well be true, but is 100% beside the point.
> 
> It doesn't really matter one whit that the harassers in this case are mostly white men.  That's not the important part of the sentence.




Then the whole "White Male Terrorist" should never have been mentioned. It was though, so I figured I would address it.



Hussar said:


> The important part of the sentence is that women are being harassed in gaming,




Yes, they are. Agree so far...



Hussar said:


> and the bystanders, who are predominantly white men, are doing virtually nothing about it.




And here you are resorting to hyperbole. I would agree that not enough is being done, but I don't think it is fair to say that virtually nothing is being done. But now we are arguing a matter of degrees. We are both saying more needs to be done, the only question is how much still needs to be done.



Hussar said:


> And when ideas are proposed to do something about it, there's a large degree of push back because it isn't "fair".




There is not a push back on everything that is suggested, just the suggestions that go too far. Now I realize that "too far" is subjective, but you can still agree on some of the things that "are not far enough" to begin with and then push for more after that.



Hussar said:


> AFAIC, race isn't really an issue here, other than I do think it does point rather strongly towards the idea that the RPG community is nowhere near as welcoming as it likes to think it is.




That does not necessarily follow. I introduced my wife to RPGs, which I love, and she didn't really get into it. She is more than willing to play Magic the Gathering with the same group of guys, however. So it isn't the people in her case. It could just be that RPGs aren't as enticing to women as men. Women, as a group, are attracted to different types of video games than men are, so the same is probably true for table top games. With plenty of exceptions on both sides of course.



Hussar said:


> Between the idea of "investigate the claims to prove things" and the victim blaming, it's not really surprising that many women would not feel comfortable being able to make complaints.




I see "investigating claims" far distant from "victim blaming". In my opinion they are farther apart than "accepting any claim on blind faith" and "investigating claims". If you truly want something done whenever a claim is made then investigating the claim is doing something. It makes the accused aware that he (it's most likely a he) is under scrutiny and it could be made clear to him that harassing behavior is not acceptable.

It also opens the door to clearing up an honest misunderstanding. It happened to me once where something I said was taken differently than I intended. When pointed out I realized the misunderstanding, apologized profusely and sincerely and we had a laugh about it afterwards. No harm no foul.



Hussar said:


> "Oh, just go somewhere else" is 100% the WRONG answer.




Agreed. And I'll assume that this is aimed at a post other than mine, even though mine was the one quoted, because I sure never said anything like that.


----------



## Lord Twig

Rygar said:


> I wouldn't draw all of those conclusions.  The language in this thread is decidedly political and very clearly representing a group that has spent the last year and pursuing those guilty of wrongthink online and off,  including attempting to have them fired from their jobs.  It's very likely that there's more than a few people like myself who've avoided direct discussion of the statements you make above out of fear of reprisal if anything is determined to be wrongthink.
> 
> It's impossible to have a conversation on this topic because of political activism and the last year and a half of events related to it, so it's impossible to draw any conclusions.




There are certainly those that go to far. We will see if my attempts at conversation draw reprisals. I'm not going to blame one side or the other. To me it looks like both sides could reel it in a bit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The language in this thread is decidedly political and very clearly representing a group that has spent the last year and pursuing those guilty of wrongthink online and off, including attempting to have them fired from their jobs.



Hmmm...I'm not sure I agree.


----------



## Morrus

Rygar said:


> I wouldn't draw all of those conclusions.  The language in this thread is decidedly political and very clearly representing a group that has spent the last year and pursuing those guilty of wrongthink online and off,  including attempting to have them fired from their jobs.




Drop the ad-hominems, please. If you can't debate a subject without resorting to claiming those who disagree with you are part of a conspiracy, go find something else to talk about.


----------



## Hussar

Lord Twig said:
			
		

> That does not necessarily follow. I introduced my wife to RPGs, which I love, and she didn't really get into it. She is more than willing to play Magic the Gathering with the same group of guys, however. So it isn't the people in her case. It could just be that RPGs aren't as enticing to women as men. Women, as a group, are attracted to different types of video games than men are, so the same is probably true for table top games. With plenty of exceptions on both sides of course.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482661-Harassment-in-gaming/page52#ixzz46W2x5BHH




Oh, there's obviously more than one reason for the demographics that we have.  I remember one interview ((and I'm remembering right now who the interview was with - someone at WotC before Hasbro, talking about the market research they did)) talking about how D&D is largely a suburbia phenomenon.  Those in the city have other options which drops D&D down the list, and those in rural areas usually lack the population numbers to make getting a group together easy.  So, D&D sells the most in suburbia.  Which, in America, tends to be predominantly white.  It's not a case of deliberately excluding anyone, just part of the way things shake out.  

But, that doesn't really explain why women aren't into it.  Because if you step away from D&D and into things like Vampire, you see a lot more women participating.  And, it's not like its a geek culture thing either.  There's all sorts of nerd pursuits where the demographics are not so lopsided.  I mean, if you go into MMO gamers in the US, from a fairly quick Google search, the split is about 60:40. 

And, at the end of the day, let's be honest, harassment isn't _helping_ the issue.  So, when the majority of people doing the harassment belong to one group, and the majority of people not doing anything to fix the problem belong to one group, I can kinda understand the frustration behind labeling that group "terrorists".  

Now, is it accurate?  Probably not.  It's click bait.  Sure.  Whatever.  I personally don't really give a toss about it.  The point is that we need to be doing more to prevent harassment in gaming.  Complaining about the form of the message isn't dealing with that problem.  Complaining that the article in the OP calls you a nasty name, well, it got your attention didn't it?  Debates over "well, I'm not a terrorist" is just obfuscating the issue.


----------



## MechaPilot

Lord Twig said:


> I've been reading through this thread and a previous one and there seems to be a lot of talking past one another.




Unfortunately, that's quite common in online discussions.




Lord Twig said:


> By and large it seems that virtually everyone agrees on the important parts. Harassment does happen, it should not be tolerated, the targets are disproportionately female and the perpetrators are mostly white men. These seem like uncontroversial facts.




I'd say that's probably an accurate assessment of the most fundamental facts that virtually everyone in the thread agrees on.




Lord Twig said:


> Now there are a few points that explains some of those facts. One, harassment happens, unfortunately, just about everywhere, so RPG gatherings would be no exception. And Two, white men are a majority of RPG players and females are a minority. So not only are there more potential harassers among white men, but also they have a position of strength as a majority group. Likewise, women, as a minority group are easier targets.




I think that adequately explains the basics of environments that either foster or harbor harassment: one group has more influence than another, often because of majority status.  The members of the more influential group feel they can behave however they wish because they are part of the more influential group, and they feel the rest of the group would support, or at least not admonish, their behavior.




Lord Twig said:


> Of course other than the demographic of RPG players *none of this has anything to do specifically with role-playing games.* The same could be said of sporting events, business conventions or political rallies.




Note: I bolded the part I wish to address.

I'm going to have to disagree that this has nothing specific to do with RPGs.  There are a few RPG specific factors, particularly related to fantasy RPGs like D&D, that would seem to me to be relevant.

1) Most fantasy RPGs take place in a pseudo-medieval setting.

There's nothing wrong with this being the default for most frpgs.  Indeed, some frpg settings even make a point of mentioning that there is a greater level of gender equality in those settings than would have existed in our medieval era.  Thank God for that: the medieval era (to my understanding) was not particularly kind, especially to women.

This can really become an issue when DMs try to inject a more authentic feel to the setting by adopting more of the aspects of reality and of our medieval world.


2) Sexualization of women in gaming art.
Note: This is not going to be a rant about art in gaming.  However, I am going to address it because it is a relevant topic.

All art is subjective, and I like some of the pin-up style art (regardless of the gender involved).  However, for a long time there was a trend in gaming art to sexualize the females presented therein.  There are many examples of this:

(a) The overused chain-mail bikini.  This is fine as part of a pin-up style picture, but we really shouldn't pretend that it provides any real protection when men wearing chain armor are draped in entire shirts of the stuff.  Also related to this is female armor that covers more than the CMB but fails to cover as much as the equivalent armor does on a man.  Depending on how it's done, I can see this as being more forgivable outside of the pin-up style than the CMB is, but it does establish that even female armor is intended at least as much to make a woman look good as it is to protect her.

(b) The dress of casters.  Most female casters seemed like they were wearing what amounts to the slave Leia outfit, with some see-through cloth hanging from it.  By contrast, male casters wore robes raging from the simple robes we see Gandalf wearing in the first LoTR film to elaborate robes befitting royalty, or the ceremonial garb of priests, bishops, popes, etc.

I could go on, but I think those two example make my point about the art (and I don't want to belabor the art issue any more than is necessary).  The main point of the art example is that the art already, on a subconscious level, sets women in the gaming sphere up to be seen as sexual objects.


3) The virgin and the harlot.

A lot of fantasy has a kind of two-faced view of women, with all women either being frail virginal flowers in need of protecting, or being harlots or seductresses.  This also potentially sets up a subconscious expectation that I've seen time and time again in gaming, mostly expressed in the belief/assumption that a female character (PC or NPC) who expresses any interest in sexuality is a harlot and not just a rounded out person.




Lord Twig said:


> The disagreement really comes in when people try to characterize the problem as either a systemic problem of RPG gatherings or that it is less common at RPG gatherings than any other gathering. I don't think we have any conclusive evidence either way. A study or survey would probably be a good idea if GenCon or some other large gaming convention would do it.




I would like to see more studies/surveys myself, if for no other reason than it calls attention to the existence of the problem (regardless of how widespread one may think that it is or is not).

That said, this is not just about the problem existing in the RPG community, but in the overall gaming community (of which rpg players are part), and female cosplayers are often faced with significant sexual assault and battery.




Lord Twig said:


> Of course I also believe that all gatherings dominated by males (of any race) needs to do better at respecting women. It is not a gamer problem or a RPG gamer problem, it is a societal problem that needs to be addressed.




I agree with that.


----------



## Rygar

Morrus said:


> Drop the ad-hominems, please. If you can't debate a subject without resorting to claiming those who disagree with you are part of a conspiracy, go find something else to talk about.




The very first post in the thread links to an article on Tumblr,  a site very well known for being an extremely political site to the point that Reddit has a sub-reddit dedicated to picking it apart,  and said article declares white males are terrorists.  The entire thread is an ad hominem attack upon an entire demographic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dude...


----------



## MechaPilot

Rygar said:


> The very first post in the thread links to an article on Tumblr,  a site very well known for being an extremely political site to the point that Reddit has a sub-reddit dedicated to picking it apart,  and said article declares white males are terrorists.  The entire thread is an ad hominem attack upon an entire demographic.




The article doesn't declare that all white men are terrorists.  The article declares that gaming has a problem with terrorism being perpetrated by white males.  I personally feel that the article used inflammatory language to get noticed, so that its contents would be talked about.  I also feel that the inflammatory language has hurt the discussions that it spawned, but it has nevertheless incited people to talk (many of us civilly) about harassment in gaming.

Also, I reject your notion that the entire thread is an ad hominem attack.  I have been a frequent contributor to both of the harassment threads, please show me where I have made an ad hominem attack.  I know that I can personally point out places where I have described making personal attacks as having no value in furthering the discussion about harassment in gaming.  There have likewise been several other posters who have posted civil thoughts and/or reactions to both the article linked to in the OP, and to the responses of other posters.


----------



## Obryn

Rygar said:


> The very first post in the thread links to an article on Tumblr,  a site very well known for being an extremely political site to the point that Reddit has a sub-reddit dedicated to picking it apart,  and said article declares white males are terrorists.  The entire thread is an ad hominem attack upon an entire demographic.



Oh, well, if _Reddit_ has a subforum dedicated to something, certainly it

...No, I can't even finish. I can't satirize that argument any more than that argument has already satirized itself. I mean, Reddit _also_ has subforums for virulent racism (really, I can't even post the subreddits' names on ENWorld), candid 'creepshots' of women (oh! sorry! it's not called that anymore is it), and outright misogyny. 'Some people on Reddit believe a thing' is a _terrible_ argument for legitimacy.


----------



## Gradine

I also thought that what Tumblr was "very well known for" was Supernatural gifs and Benedict Cumberbatch memes. Did that change recently?


----------



## Hussar

Rygar said:


> The very first post in the thread links to an article on Tumblr,  a site very well known for being an extremely political site to the point that Reddit has a sub-reddit dedicated to picking it apart,  and said article declares white males are terrorists.  The entire thread is an ad hominem attack upon an entire demographic.




No, it really, really doesn't.  That's not what it says at all.  What it does say is that a large group of white men in the hobby are perpetrating terrorism on women in an attempt to force them from the hobby.  And that people who use the threat of violence to force others to behave in a certain manner are, in fact, terrorists.

So, let's look at the quotes shall we?



			
				Article said:
			
		

> This isn’t the first time I’ve received an avalanche of threats from pathetic and insecure men. It isn’t the second time or even the third or fourth. At this point, I know that if I speak out against the abuses myself and my friends have suffered as a result of our participation in the “friendly gaming community” I can expect to be silenced with extreme prejudice. Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines terrorism as an act committed “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.”
> 
> ...
> 
> Make no mistake that this is terrorism. The men who e-mail me rape threats have a vested interest in anyone perceived as “lesser” being expelled from the community. And the tragic thing is that it works.




So, unless you are one of the men who have emailed this woman a rape threat, then she isn't talking about you.  Also:



> White male terrorism is the white underbelly of the gaming community, meant to terrify and disrupt the lives of those who threaten the status quo by race, gender, or sexuality. It succeeds because the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists. At best, these cowards ignore the problem. At worst, they join the terrorists in blaming their victims for the abuse. The point of online terrorism is that it is endless, omnipresent, and anonymous. I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to “[/edit for very much grandma unfriendly quote]". Knowing that the person sending those e-mails could be anyone and the community will not support me if/when I am attacked keeps myself and many others from the hobby.
> 
> *The majority of gamers do not engage in online terrorism, but are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment*. It is almost impossible to convince gamers that sexist and racist jokes are unacceptable and that they make others uncomfortable and drive people off. Indeed, raising this issue at all often results in threats and more terrorism. It is unsurprising then that people with conscience have come together to create Hater Free Wednesdays/Saturdays—a master list of comic and game stores and their relative safety for women and minorities.
> 
> Gamers bemoan the loss of the local game store while ignoring their culpability for its demise. Amazon is blamed for the death of local game stores, but few gamers stop to question why so many people are choosing to buy social games in such an asocial manner.




At worst she is saying you are complicit by not acknowledging the problem and actively doing something about it.  Claiming that the article is calling all gamers white male terrorists is a misreading what's written.  Now, is what she saying accurate?  That's something we're talking about and it should be discussed as openly as possble.  But fixating on something she never actually wrote in an attempt to shut down all conversation is, well, precisely the point she's trying to make.  That the majority of gamers are complicit in not actively attempting to ensure that this sort of crap doesn't happen in our community.


----------



## Sadras

Okay I never read the link, but now that you've posted it on here, I feel the article is seriously, SERIOUSLY exaggerated. I'm all for stating that varying levels of harassment exist within and without the hobby, men are generally boorish and behind closed doors the table might not be A-correct but to state "It succeeds because the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists" is just plain....

Quick someone call Seth and Amy for an episode of Really! This stuff is gold.

If you buy into that dogma then I'm free to say "the majority of people in country X are too cowardly to stand up against its bullish people in government whom they voted for" and might as well call the population of X terrorists.

Really!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

History shows again and again that inaction aids the triumph of evil.

You ever been in the projects of my old hometown, NOLA?  People complain about the crime, but also "don't snitch".  How can the police be effective if witnesses don't come forward?  Yes, they have legitimate concerns for their safety, and not everyone has the spine to risk it and be a hero, but their silence IS a factor in their neighborhoods being so dangerous.

More accurately, it started with a few people not coming forward, then more, and then some more.  Because it takes YEARS of continued silence for a neighborhood to reach a critical mass of criminality.  Those projects, when built, were not like that.  They even had parquet floors.  But decades of that subculture of looking the other way let the criminals become the dominant force.


----------



## Morrus

Rygar said:


> The very first post in the thread links to an article on Tumblr,  a site very well known for being an extremely political site to the point that Reddit has a sub-reddit dedicated to picking it apart,  and said article declares white males are terrorists.  The entire thread is an ad hominem attack upon an entire demographic.




Well done. Two rules in one post. Arguing about moderation in-thread and ignoring a moderator instruction to leave the thread. I'll give you points for efficiency, at least.  Now you have to have a few days off the entire board.


----------



## Springheel

> It doesn't really matter one whit that the harassers in this case are  mostly white men. ..... AFAIC, race isn't really an issue here​




It may not be an issue to you, but it certainly appears to be an issue to the author of the original article (which constantly refers to "white male terrorism" not "male terrorism"), and with a number of people posting in this thread.  That might explain some of the defensiveness.

I wonder how many of the people who are fine with this article would be equally okay with an article titled, "We have a Male Muslim Terrorist problem", and which included lines like, "Male, Muslim terrorism is the dark underbelly of the world today...It succeeds because the majority of Muslim Men are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and  the terrorists. At best, these cowards ignore the problem. At worst,  they join the terrorists in blaming their victims for the abuse."

I suspect a lot of the same people defending this article would NOT be lining up to defend an article blaming all Male Muslims for the actions of Muslim terrorists, or blaming all black males because they don't speak up about black rappers routinely calling women offensive names and glorifying rape in their music.  In fact, I highly suspect such articles would be met with charges of racism.





​​


----------



## Umbran

Springheel said:


> I suspect a lot of the same people defending this article would NOT be lining up to defend an article blaming all Male Muslims for the actions of Muslim terrorists, or blaming all black males because they don't speak up about black rappers routinely calling women offensive names and glorifying rape in their music.  In fact, I highly suspect such articles would be met with charges of racism.




It seems to me that most of us aren't really defending the article, per se, so much as recognizing that however the article is written the issue that inspired it is real.  In fact,I think several of us noted early on (as in on the *first page* of the thread) that the article was overstated.

We then asked folks to *look beyond* that, so we could discuss the actual issues.  Because, to be honest, continuing to address that is a form of misdirection - it is making the discussion about all those poor white men who aren't terrorists, instead of about the women who are getting harassed.  This misdirection is actually a logical fallacy - discarding a point due to the way it is presented, rather than the actual content, similar in form to an ad hominem, where you dismiss the point due to some personal flaw of the speaker.

The basic issue occurs, whoever wrote it, and whether or not they said it in the best way.

But, a bunch of people don't seem willing to look beyond the statement.  That's unfortunate that priorities fall out that way, still after 50+ pages of discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Springheel said:


> It may not be an issue to you, but it certainly appears to be an issue to the author of the original article (which constantly refers to "white male terrorism" not "male terrorism"), and with a number of people posting in this thread.  That might explain some of the defensiveness.
> 
> I wonder how many of the people who are fine with this article would be equally okay with an article titled, "We have a Male Muslim Terrorist problem", and which included lines like, "Male, Muslim terrorism is the dark underbelly of the world today...It succeeds because the majority of Muslim Men are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and  the terrorists. At best, these cowards ignore the problem. At worst,  they join the terrorists in blaming their victims for the abuse."



Well- besides the points raised in Umbran's post- several of us could also point out:

1) the gaming hobby in the USA is predominantly one of white males, so odds heavily favor them being the main culprit, and

2) according to global terrorism stats, the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are done by radicalized right wing white males with anti-minority and/or anti-governmental agendas, and by secular political separatists in Europe.

So, no, there probably wouldn't be many defenders of such an article.

And even so, it is _well documented _how local action or inaction aids or hinders efforts to root out terrorist organizations, all over the world.


----------



## Rottle

This being the internet I tend to not trust statements of "fact" with no proof.  The artical recalls many events and implies they all happened and happened to the same person.  I honestly don't believe that, however I also don't care.  One of the other poster related her experiences and again my belief things happened exactly as she related isn't important.   The artical was poorly written if it's purpose is to get people motivated to change their behaviors in my view.  When writing to convince people to do soemthing or more importantly that what they are doing needs to change the last thing you should do is put that group on the defensive, which clearly that writer does.  

Ok can we all agree the artical is not important though to the over all discussion of the topic?  

To me the only relevant topic is how do we stop harassment and protect each other from it, even if it happens far more rarely then some have stated.  I am all on board with a zero harassment tolerance program, so any is not acceptable.   Let's move past debates about how much happens, whether this poster has an agenda or anything else.  Let just focus on protecting our fellow human beings.   

I also saw a bit of talk about some people being too easily offended.   For me it would take a lot to offend me, I know who I am, and so whatever a stranger says to me simply doesn't matter.  But I respect people have different levels of tolerance for this, and by respect I mean I go overboard in making sure I don't offend.  There are limits, as with all things nothing going too far ends well, but I would rather be slightly inconvenienced then offend or even worse make someone uncomfortable.   I recall in my college days I went to a college in rural western pa, people there rarely if ever curse.  I am from a more urban area of New Jersey...every other word out of my mouth then was a curse.  I didn't see it as offensive but it was to them, so instead of insisting they change I took it on myself to change.  To my mind it was just me being respectful.  

Let's keep this simple.  Can we all agree to respect each other?  I think just that would be a good step.  Add to that don't allow others to be disrespected without standing up for them and we are going strong.   

As far as the physical harassment, that can never be tolerated or allowed to stand unchallenged.   We can argue over which words offend but once someone is laid a hand on all debate ends.  We as a community need to simply not allow it, not tolerate those who do it, and rush to the side of those it is done to.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

I thought this was going to be some lame ass comment about chain mail bikinis.  But, it isn't.  The incidents reported in this site are horrendous, absolutely horrendous and heart breaking.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

> “Do you have any models that look like me?” the woman asks.
> 
> “We only have normal models,” my co-worker titters, “I can order you the noble savage.”
> 
> The woman leaves. We never see her again.




Are there pewter companies that offer a lot of non-European figs?  Not just African, European, and Asian, but Native American (without the stereotypical gear), Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, Amazonians, MesoAmericans, Innuit, etc.?


----------



## Lord Twig

MechaPilot said:


> I'm going to have to disagree that this has nothing specific to do with RPGs.  There are a few RPG specific factors, particularly related to fantasy RPGs like D&D, that would seem to me to be relevant.
> 
> 1) Most fantasy RPGs take place in a pseudo-medieval setting.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with this being the default for most frpgs.  Indeed, some frpg settings even make a point of mentioning that there is a greater level of gender equality in those settings than would have existed in our medieval era.  Thank God for that: the medieval era (to my understanding) was not particularly kind, especially to women.
> 
> This can really become an issue when DMs try to inject a more authentic feel to the setting by adopting more of the aspects of reality and of our medieval world.




I think the "pseudo" part has made this a lot better today than in the past. All of the current settings I'm aware of have gender equality in their societies. The only exception being the Drow, which is a matriarchy.



MechaPilot said:


> 2) Sexualization of women in gaming art.
> Note: This is not going to be a rant about art in gaming.  However, I am going to address it because it is a relevant topic.
> 
> All art is subjective, and I like some of the pin-up style art (regardless of the gender involved).  However, for a long time there was a trend in gaming art to sexualize the females presented therein.  There are many examples of this:
> 
> (a) The overused chain-mail bikini.  This is fine as part of a pin-up style picture, but we really shouldn't pretend that it provides any real protection when men wearing chain armor are draped in entire shirts of the stuff.  Also related to this is female armor that covers more than the CMB but fails to cover as much as the equivalent armor does on a man.  Depending on how it's done, I can see this as being more forgivable outside of the pin-up style than the CMB is, but it does establish that even female armor is intended at least as much to make a woman look good as it is to protect her.
> 
> (b) The dress of casters.  Most female casters seemed like they were wearing what amounts to the slave Leia outfit, with some see-through cloth hanging from it.  By contrast, male casters wore robes raging from the simple robes we see Gandalf wearing in the first LoTR film to elaborate robes befitting royalty, or the ceremonial garb of priests, bishops, popes, etc.
> 
> I could go on, but I think those two example make my point about the art (and I don't want to belabor the art issue any more than is necessary).  The main point of the art example is that the art already, on a subconscious level, sets women in the gaming sphere up to be seen as sexual objects.




I think the chain mail bikini isn't as overused as many people think. It's just the worst (best? You know what i mean.  ) example of the "scanty armor" problem. It's probably about as common as the armored loin cloth the men are portrayed as wearing. That said female armor in general has a problem with showing off skin at the expense of protection. Far more so than armor for men. So it is a problem.

But should the chain mail bikini/loincloth and the like be removed from games entirely? Sure there should be competent, sensibly armored female characters portrayed just like male characters. And we are getting more of that now. But there is still a market for attractive characters (of both sexes) that are showing some skin.

Honestly of all the disappointing art in D&D 5e, the one that bugs me the second most (after Halflings) is the barbarian. It's just some guy in plain pants and a shirt with an axe! What the heck? Where are the rippling muscles and rage? It looks like his is just taking a Sunday stroll through the park.

I will admit that we need more sensibly dressed female wizards/sorcerers. They are out there, but there needs to be more. I will also say that I would like to see more young, attractive male wizards showing off their physique. I need more images for my characters. 

In the ShadowRun games I played an equal weight was given to style as well as function, and I don't think it is that different in fantasy games. Many people like to have their characters look good. And yes, they even want them to be sexy. People are sexual creatures. That doesn't automatically make them sexual objects.



MechaPilot said:


> 3) The virgin and the harlot.
> 
> A lot of fantasy has a kind of two-faced view of women, with all women either being frail virginal flowers in need of protecting, or being harlots or seductresses.  This also potentially sets up a subconscious expectation that I've seen time and time again in gaming, mostly expressed in the belief/assumption that a female character (PC or NPC) who expresses any interest in sexuality is a harlot and not just a rounded out person.




I agree with this 100%. I think the current game industry has made great strides in this area though. In some cases they have gone so far that it would seem that seductresses don't even exist. But that's okay. A break from the trope is probably needed right now.

Of course despite what the game companies do they can't control what the players do. And players will make characters of all sorts. Some of which should probably not have been made. And, to bring this all the way back to the original topic, most of those players will be white males. (Full disclosure, I'm a white hetero male.)



MechaPilot said:


> That said, this is not just about the problem existing in the RPG community, but in the overall gaming community (of which rpg players are part), and female cosplayers are often faced with significant sexual assault and battery.




Agreed, and more should be done to stop it. Probably the fist step would be better training for those responsible for running the conventions and for those providing security.


----------



## Springheel

> We then asked folks to *look beyond* that, so we could discuss the actual issues. Because, to be honest, continuing to address that is a form of misdirection - it is making the discussion about all those poor white men who aren't terrorists, instead of about the women who are getting harassed. This misdirection is actually a logical fallacy




Since this is a public thread of over 50+ pages, it's a little difficult to argue what should or shouldn't be the main focus of conversation.  There are at least half a dozen different topics running throughout, all of which are directly related to the article in the OP, not to mention the spin-off conversations that are only tangentially related.

However, looking at what you claim is the "actual issue", the thread is full of statements from people expressing their support for anti-harassment policies at conventions, and a general agreement that physical harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, at least as far as I can see.  Do you not see it that way or are you looking for something more than that?


----------



## MechaPilot

Lord Twig said:


> I think the chain mail bikini isn't as overused as many people think. It's just the worst (best? You know what i mean.  ) example of the "scanty armor" problem. It's probably about as common as the armored loin cloth the men are portrayed as wearing. That said female armor in general has a problem with showing off skin at the expense of protection. Far more so than armor for men. So it is a problem.




I agreed with much of your reply to my post (hence the Xp award), but I wanted to highlight this part because I feel that you've fallen into a common trap in the comparison of scantily clad fantasy art.  The big, muscly men are not eye candy for us ladies: they are wish-fulfillment for male gamers, many of whom are "nerds" and lack the powerful physique of the jocks that used to torment them in school (the scantily clad men could also possibly be eye candy for a subset of the male gamer audience).  Everyone certainly has their own preferences, so nothing is universal, but by and large most women prefer the lean and toned physique (like a runner or swimmer) to the Mr. Universe physique.  Even a less toned look is apparently preferred: somewhat recently on the radio I heard about the "dad bod," a little muscular but not terribly toned, being rather popular with ladies.  As Dannyalcatraz pointed out (either in this thread or the other harassment thread), Sean Connery, who was seen as a sex symbol when he played James Bond, had a physique similar to the aforementioned "dad bod."

Maybe I've rattled on a bit longer than I should have, but the point remains that the Mr. Universe look hearkens back to the wish-fulfillment seen in superhero physiques and has far less female appeal than the Michael Phelps, Bruce Lee, or Bond-era Connery looks.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> It seems to me that most of us aren't really defending the article, per se, so much as recognizing that however the article is written the issue that inspired it is real.  In fact,I think several of us noted early on (as in on the *first page* of the thread) that the article was overstated.
> 
> We then asked folks to *look beyond* that, so we could discuss the actual issues.  Because, to be honest, continuing to address that is a form of misdirection - it is making the discussion about all those poor white men who aren't terrorists, instead of about the women who are getting harassed.  This misdirection is actually a logical fallacy - discarding a point due to the way it is presented, rather than the actual content, similar in form to an ad hominem, where you dismiss the point due to some personal flaw of the speaker.
> 
> The basic issue occurs, whoever wrote it, and whether or not they said it in the best way.
> 
> But, a bunch of people don't seem willing to look beyond the statement.  That's unfortunate that priorities fall out that way, still after 50+ pages of discussion.




This is Kafkaesque.  "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing."  The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior.  It relies upon painting a situation where the reader will kneejerk away from the concept of being an accomplice to behavior they find horrible so that they will accept general guilt and culpability - in this case membership in a group with a terrorism problem.  It's set up so that it hides the fact that you can reject the argument altogether and not accept culpability for acts you did not commit.  I neither have to stop pointing out that inflammatory language is inflammatory, nor do I have to accept that I am part of the problem you've painted.  I do not harass, I do tolerate harassment, and I agree with the concept and execution of reasonable harassment policies.  I also think that saying things like 'white male terrorism' is counterproductive and cancerous to continuing to reduce harassment.  I do not have to fall into your binary.

And accepting that kind of language is cancerous on two fronts.  Firstly, if you do fall into the kafkatrap above, you are either marginalized in the discussion by falling silent to avoid the opprobrium or you internalize the flawed logic and begin to use the same kafkatrap on others.  Thus, more and more people are exposed to it and it's flawed statement of guilt (and, make no mistake, any choice within the fallacy applies guilt -- you either accept that you're guilty as a member of the group or you have guilt thrust upon you for being complicit if you fail to accept the group guilt). And that's just messed up and unhealthy.  There are other ways to approach and deal with the problem to do not require people to accept that they have guilt as a member of a class of people.

The second front is that it internalizes the exact behavior that's meant to be addressed at the core of the effort.  If you're aiming to end sexism, racism, gender harassment, etc., then allowing sexist, racist, gender harassing inflammatory language to be defended because it's coming from the movement is cancerous.  That's a deep, dark, malignant cancer that you're allowing close into the heart of the effort.  People that do that are have either accepted the guilt already or are making an effort to instill a new form of -archy and privilege that favors them.  It's possible to approach the problem from a respect point of view for everyone and not malign with generalizations and stereotypes.  It's even possible to do that AND acknowledge that the harassment is mostly one-way right now.  In fact, I think it's critical to do so to build a base that won't allow the harassment to switch direction if the minority group becomes the majority.  Process matters, means matter, and ignoring bad behavior because it's aimed generally at your desired goal is counterproductive.

And, finally, will you please stop misusing the tone argument fallacy?  The proper form of the tone argument is dismissing an entire argument because of the manner in which it's stated.  No one has done that.  Instead, everyone seems pretty on-board with the idea of stopping harassment and that the things related in the article are not acceptable.  The argument hasn't been dismissed based on the words used or the tone of the argument.  Thus, no tone argument fallacy.  Instead, what's happened is that people have taken specific issue with the specific terms used, and, make no mistake, those terms are heavily laden with lots of meaning.  And they've taken issues specifically, and not to the detriment or dismissal of the larger issue.  You can claim that's a distraction -- that's a fine argument, if you're ends oriented, but it's not the tone argument fallacy.


----------



## Morrus

Ovinomancer said:


> This is Kafkaesque.  "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing."  The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior.




No, that's not correct. There's a third choice. Take the side discussion to another thread, and not have every thread that attempts to discuss the harassment be hijacked into 40 pages about the phrase used to bring the issue to peoples' attention. 

So folks can have 1000 posts about the use of the word "terrorist" if they want to. But taking it to another thread is reasonable, because, as yet, the discussion about harassment of our fellow gamers *still* hasn't happened. Every attempt becomes 40 pages about how white men got called a meanie. Which would be fine if it didn't prevent the harassment discussion happening every single time, over and over again. 

It's a Catch 22. Don't use inflammatory language and nobody notices. Use it, and the discussion is only about the language. Folks are still searching for the magic formula which allows the actual harassment - the actual issue that's harming people - to be discussed.  

I don't know how to do it. I'd love it if that conversation happened, but to my knowledge it has not yet ever actually happened.  It's not allowed to.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Speaking as a gay man, I have the ability to look at a chain mail bikini and not objectify women.  
That being said, there are plenty of opportunities in fantasy to objectify men.  That's been going on for a very long time.
examples
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZzJqLhRuDYM/TYWuowCOpYI/AAAAAAAAFdo/iCOAjZb_2wY/s1600/beastmaster_1.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/BeastMaster_cast.JPG

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...rceress.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110805204245

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/jason-momoa-conan-barbarian-workout__oPt.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/cghceiofo4jb8io9dzco.jpg

and, yet, not once have I had a problem viewing these characters as more than sex symbols.  So, I can easily believe that straight men are the same way with regards to chain mail bikinis.

And that's the problem.  Because as long as feminists are complaining about chain mail bikinis, they are undermining their own credibility.  No one is going to listen to someone who undermines their own credibility EVEN WHEN that someone is discussing other issues which are real and significant.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Morrus said:


> No, that's not correct. There's a third choice. Take the side discussion to another thread, and not have every thread that attempts to discuss the harassment be hijacked into 40 pages about the phrase used to bring the issue to peoples' attention.
> 
> So folks can have 1000 posts about the use of the word "terrorist" if they want to. But taking it to another thread is reasonable, because, as yet, the discussion about harassment of our fellow gamers *still* hasn't happened. Every attempt becomes 40 pages about how white men got called a meanie. Which would be fine if it didn't prevent the harassment discussion happening every single time, over and over again.
> 
> It's a Catch 22. Don't use inflammatory language and nobody notices. Use it, and the discussion is only about the language. Folks are still searching for the magic formula which allows the actual harassment - the actual issue that's harming people - to be discussed.
> 
> I don't know how to do it. I'd love it if that conversation happened, but to my knowledge it has not yet ever actually happened.  It's not allowed to.




I must have not missed something.  I've seen a bunch of posts discussing and acknowledging that harassment happens.  I've seen a bunch of posts from people waking up to the extent and scope of the problem. I've seen a bunch of posts talking about effective anti-harassment policies (and some not so effective and some counterproductive, even).  I've seen LOTS of discussion about the problem and even positive steps to addressing it.  Either we're reading different threads or we have a different idea of what a discussion of the problem is.  So, let's solve that:  what does a discussion have to have to be a discussion that isn't occurring in this thread?


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> So folks can have 1000 posts about the use of the word "terrorist" if they want to.




As a gay man, I'm very familiar with the rhetoric which attempts to reverse hatred in order to be heard.  It is cheap.  It is lazy.  It is unproductive and it actually _increases_ the amount of harm being done.

If you are unable to write effectively without stooping to the level of cheap shots (like using words like "terrorist"), that's really all about your lack of writing persuasively.  Get better.


----------



## Rottle

Not all of us gamers lacked the physique of jocks......&#55357;&#56839;

But yeah the Arnold Connan was likely more wishfullfillment but the comic book version was more Tarzan style.   Lean mean fighting machine.  

Still none of that stuff really strikes me as nearly as important as this harassment issue.  I lean on if we can all just be respectful and honest with ourselves things will be much better.  And really is that so hard to do?

( in college 2ed was the current d&d for me and it had a max press accociated with each level of strength, I never managed to get out of 18(01)-18(50)...and I tried for four years to do so. ).  Yes I am old......get off my lawn.....


----------



## MechaPilot

Darkwing Duck said:


> As a gay man, I'm very familiar with the rhetoric which attempts to reverse hatred in order to be heard.  It is cheap.  It is lazy.  It is unproductive and it actually _increases_ the amount of harm being done.
> 
> If you are unable to write effectively without stooping to the level of cheap shots (like using words like "terrorist"), that's really all about your lack of writing persuasively.  Get better.




While I generally agree, I do have to say that the term terrorist is at least accurate as far as those who were sending death and rape threats to the lady who wrote the article.  If someone tries to use fear of being killed, violated, or otherwise harmed as a weapon to silence you, that person is a terrorist just as surely as a religious extremist who threatens to blow up a school for girls because he objects to women being educated.


----------



## Morrus

Ovinomancer said:


> I must have not missed something.  I've seen a bunch of posts discussing and acknowledging that harassment happens.  I've seen a bunch of posts from people waking up to the extent and scope of the problem. I've seen a bunch of posts talking about effective anti-harassment policies (and some not so effective and some counterproductive, even).  I've seen LOTS of discussion about the problem and even positive steps to addressing it.  Either we're reading different threads or we have a different idea of what a discussion of the problem is.  So, let's solve that:  what does a discussion have to have to be a discussion that isn't occurring in this thread?




I guess we are reading different threads, because to my eyes this thread is largely dominated by how a handful of white men feel about the technicalities of  the discussion's language, and not about the actual harassment. Even this exchange isn't about the harassment our fellow gamers are experiencing; it's still about us. I'm even contributing to the problem by raising it!


----------



## Ovinomancer

MechaPilot said:


> While I generally agree, I do have to say that the term terrorist is at least accurate as far as those who were sending death and rape threats to the lady who wrote the article.  If someone tries to use fear of being killed, violated, or otherwise harmed as a weapon to silence you, that person is a terrorist just as surely as a religious extremist who threatens to blow up a school for girls because he objects to women being educated.




I don't think anyone has much of a problem with that (aside from the overuse of the word terrorism these days).  The issue is with the broad generalization of the term with sexist and racist baggage.


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> As a gay man, I'm very familiar with the rhetoric which attempts to reverse hatred in order to be heard.  It is cheap.  It is lazy.  It is unproductive and it actually _increases_ the amount of harm being done.
> 
> If you are unable to write effectively without stooping to the level of cheap shots (like using words like "terrorist"), that's really all about your lack of writing persuasively.  Get better.




I think you may be confused. 

(a) I was not the author of said phrase.

(b) The writing eloquence of those who have tried to draw attention to the issue is not the issue. So what if it's "lazy" and the author needs to "get better" at writing? This isn't a book review. It's an attempt to discuss harassment. If the writing isn't up to your standards, let it go. That's not the important thing.

And yet again, we're still not taking about the issue of harrassment; just your critique of the author's writing style.


----------



## MechaPilot

Darkwing Duck said:


> And that's the problem.  Because as long as feminists are complaining about chain mail bikinis, they are undermining their own credibility.  No one is going to listen to someone who undermines their own credibility EVEN WHEN that someone is discussing other issues which are real and significant.




I don't know if this was directed at me or not (I was just talking about CMBs in this thread, so I think it could be), but I have to say that I disagree with your opinion here.

I am an old-school feminist, meaning that I adhere to the original feminist philosophy of advocating for equal treatment under the law regardless of gender (and not for special treatment for one gender over another, or overreacting to things in media like the Joker-Harley slap photo leaked from the set of Suicide Squad).  I do not have a problem with pin-up art in general.  I like pin-up art.  However, to claim that the depiction of females in gaming art is not relevant to how females are seen seems naive to me.  The overly-sexualized style with which females are often depicted in fantasy art presents women who are typically less-competent, less-prepared, and more fixated on appearance than their male counterparts.

I don't think that anyone is reasonably claiming that the CMB is, on its own, the source of the problems facing women in gaming.  If anything, it's either symptomatic of the existing issue, or a potentially exacerbating factor.  I will say that a reduction in the amount of pin-up style art over the years has made it easier for me to show off my D&D books to other women who show an interest in gaming.  Being able to show off the books without being embarrassed by the art and without having to say things like "I know, I know, but the game really is fun if you give it a chance" improves the accessibility of the game and helps grow the hobby.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Morrus said:


> I guess we are reading different threads, because to my eyes this thread is largely dominated by how a handful of white men feel about the technicalities of  the discussion's language, and not about the actual harassment. Even this exchange isn't about the harassment our fellow gamers are experiencing; it's still about us. I'm even contributing to the problem by raising it!




I think it's more that we're reading the same thread through a different lens.  I don't accept that I have to acknowledge that I have any responsibility or guilt over the actions of others.  I can see that there's a problem without needing to accept guilt for that problem.  My solution set doesn't require that others refrain from talking about poor behaviors because there are worse behaviors.  I can see the people that have stated that they weren't aware of the scope of the problem, but are now.  I can see the people discussing useful harassment policies.  I can see the people that state that they're going to be more aware and more ready to take action.  You seem to only see the people that don't want to acquiesce to group guilt.  Both are here; it's a matter of perspective.


----------



## Ovinomancer

MechaPilot said:


> I don't know if this was directed at me or not (I was just talking about CMBs in this thread, so I think it could be), but I have to say that I disagree with your opinion here.
> 
> I am an old-school feminist, meaning that I adhere to the original feminist philosophy of advocating for equal treatment under the law regardless of gender (and not for special treatment for one gender over another, or overreacting to things in media like the Joker-Harley slap photo leaked from the set of Suicide Squad).  I do not have a problem with pin-up art in general.  I like pin-up art.  However, to claim that the depiction of females in gaming art is not relevant to how females are seen seems naive to me.  The overly-sexualized style with which females are often depicted in fantasy art presents women who are typically less-competent, less-prepared, and more fixated on appearance than their male counterparts.
> 
> I don't think that anyone is reasonably claiming that the CMB is, on its own, the source of the problems facing women in gaming.  If anything, it's either symptomatic of the existing issue, or a potentially exacerbating factor.  I will say that a reduction in the amount of pin-up style art over the years has made it easier for me to show off my D&D books to other women who show an interest in gaming.  Being able to show off the books without being embarrassed by the art and without having to say things like "I know, I know, but the game really is fun if you give it a chance" improves the accessibility of the game and helps grow the hobby.




For some reason I can't give XP to this post (the button is missing), so take a quote instead.  100% agreement on this whole thing.  Game art had/has a serious objectivication issue.  I've no issue with the occasional cheesecake/beefcake, but it was almost all that.  Much better now, and the bit about showing around the books to others is very true.


----------



## Morrus

Ovinomancer said:


> I think it's more that we're reading the same thread through a different lens.  I don't accept that I have to acknowledge that I have any responsibility or guilt over the actions of others.  I can see that there's a problem without needing to accept guilt for that problem.  My solution set doesn't require that others refrain from talking about poor behaviors because there are worse behaviors.  I can see the people that have stated that they weren't aware of the scope of the problem, but are now.  I can see the people discussing useful harassment policies.  I can see the people that state that they're going to be more aware and more ready to take action.  You seem to only see the people that don't want to acquiesce to group guilt.  Both are here; it's a matter of perspective.




Group guilt is not the thing. I don't even know where that comes from or what it is, but I wasn't talking about it. But I don't want to exacerbate the hijack by discussing how *we* feel about the way the problem is being discussed. I can't stop you talking about that, but I think it repeatedly distracts from the important thing: that our fellow gamers are being abused. 

I'm not going to respond further on this side issue. Not because I'm annoyed or anything, but because I don't want to contribute to the very problem that I'm seeing (the problem with discussion, not the more serious problem of actual abuse).  It becomes hypocritical of me to turn the thread even further into yet another a discussion about how we discuss the issue rather than actually discussing the  issue.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I think it's more that we're reading the same thread through a different lens.  I don't accept that I have to acknowledge that I have any responsibility or guilt over the actions of others.  I can see that there's a problem without needing to accept guilt for that problem.




I think it may be important to inject a bit on language here.  Specifically about "responsibility" and "guilt".  This will be relevant for any number of cases where one is part of, or heir to, a group that committed some wrongs.  In colloquial use, we don't often differentiate between these terms, but discussion becomes *tons* easier if we do.

If a person is "responsible" for something, that actually means that they are expected to do something about it, to take some action.

If a person is "accountable" for something, then when we go looking for why it went wrong, we are going to look to them.  If you are looking to punish, or assign guilt, you're actually looking for the person who is accountable for it - "the buck stops here" tells you where the accountable person is.  

So, in a completely non-criminal example:  If you have a software project, the engineers are responsible for writing code - it is their assigned task.  If the overall project fails, however, it is the project owner who is held accountable for it.

Those of us who do not commit harassment are not accountable for it - we are not guilty.  We may be responsible for providing part of the solution, simply because we are in a position to do so, in a way the victim is not.


----------



## Lord Twig

MechaPilot said:


> I agreed with much of your reply to my post (hence the Xp award), but I wanted to highlight this part because I feel that you've fallen into a common trap in the comparison of scantily clad fantasy art.  The big, muscly men are not eye candy for us ladies: they are wish-fulfillment for male gamers, many of whom are "nerds" and lack the powerful physique of the jocks that used to torment them in school (the scantily clad men could also possibly be eye candy for a subset of the male gamer audience).  Everyone certainly has their own preferences, so nothing is universal, but by and large most women prefer the lean and toned physique (like a runner or swimmer) to the Mr. Universe physique.  Even a less toned look is apparently preferred: somewhat recently on the radio I heard about the "dad bod," a little muscular but not terribly toned, being rather popular with ladies.  As Dannyalcatraz pointed out (either in this thread or the other harassment thread), Sean Connery, who was seen as a sex symbol when he played James Bond, had a physique similar to the aforementioned "dad bod."
> 
> Maybe I've rattled on a bit longer than I should have, but the point remains that the Mr. Universe look hearkens back to the wish-fulfillment seen in superhero physiques and has far less female appeal than the Michael Phelps, Bruce Lee, or Bond-era Connery looks.




I did not say anything about big, muscle bulging guys. Let alone that they were eye candy for ladies, just that loincloths were as common as chain mail bikinis. My wife and several other women I have talked to have expressed a similar view to what you have posted. But I guess it is true that the vast majority of loin cloth wearing males are indeed of the bulging muscle variety.

And speaking of common misconceptions. The idea the nerds are jealous of jocks and want to be like them is BS. I was a big nerd in high school and had _no_ desire to have bulging muscles or to be anything like the jocks. They were a bunch of jerks? Why would I want to be anything like them? And you know where being big and strong gets you today? Nowhere. Unless, _maybe_, you are able to get on a sports team. But good luck with that. And anyway I don't like sports either! So yeah, really don't care to be all big and muscly. Maybe my friends and I were outliers, but it is definitely not universal.

All that said there is certainly a place for super muscly guys in RPGs. I mean, the Hulk was awesome in the first Avengers movie! So characters that can pull off impressive feats of strength can definitely be fun. Therefore they should be portrayed in the art. The same as a stealthy rogue or powerful spell caster.

So apparently scantily clad guys with huge muscles are not a problem, because women aren't terribly interested in them. So are you suggesting that there should be more "dad bode" guys to provide eye candy for ladies? Or Bruce Lee, young Sean Connery or Benedict Cumberbatch types? (I had a nurse helping me at a hospital that went on and on about how sexy Cumberbatch was.)

And would it be acceptable to show scantily clad women if men _weren't_ attracted to them? That kinda suggests that women need to be covered up because men can't help themselves and will be unable to see an attractive woman without thinking about having sex with her.


----------



## Balesir

Ovinomancer said:


> This is Kafkaesque.  "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing."  The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior.  It relies upon painting a situation where the reader will kneejerk away from the concept of being an accomplice to behavior they find horrible so that they will accept general guilt and culpability - in this case *membership in a group with a terrorism problem*.



This whole post was laced with whining about "it's not my fault", but this particular bit (focussed on the bit I have bolded) might throw some light on why that is all unfounded.

Start by reading it in a slightly more widely stated way:

- The human race is a group with a terrorism problem (or, more accurately, several)

- the Kingdom Animalia is a group with (many) a terrorism problem

Neither of these claims, while merely wider versions of what is being objected to, has anything to do with racism, sexism or other "politically charged" prejudices.

Now move to some more specific cases:

- Every nation on Earth is a group with a terrorism problem

- The Islamic faith is a group with a terrorism problem

- White male gamers are a group with a terrorism problem

These groups all have a terrorism problem, in the specific sense that some of their number are trying to keep "outsiders" off of "their" turf by terrorising them into going away. That certainly does not mean that all members of the group are guilty of perpetrating terrorism - in fact it is in all cases a very small minority that do. But if the members of all such groups grew a smidgeon of humility and accepted some shared guilt for the culture, the environment and the lack of clear contrary influence that has resulted in such monsters within their ranks, the problems might actually start getting fixed instead of grinding on without end.

Sadly, however, what invariably comes to the fore is the very opposite of humility; it is a prideful rejection of what is perceived as an attack on the group's social position. The implication is that a measure of harrassment, exploitation and even outright abuse (by a minority and with plausible deniability) is an acceptable price to pay for the continued social position of the group. And are the group members guilty of supporting that implied assumption? Yes, actually, they are as long as they fail to act against it. If you are a member of a group, and that group is doing wrong, you have a duty to act to stop that wrong by whatever means are available to you.


----------



## Lord Twig

MechaPilot said:


> I don't know if this was directed at me or not (I was just talking about CMBs in this thread, so I think it could be), but I have to say that I disagree with your opinion here.
> 
> I am an old-school feminist, meaning that I adhere to the original feminist philosophy of advocating for equal treatment under the law regardless of gender (and not for special treatment for one gender over another, or overreacting to things in media like the Joker-Harley slap photo leaked from the set of Suicide Squad).  I do not have a problem with pin-up art in general.  I like pin-up art.  However, to claim that the depiction of females in gaming art is not relevant to how females are seen seems naive to me.  The overly-sexualized style with which females are often depicted in fantasy art presents women who are typically less-competent, less-prepared, and more fixated on appearance than their male counterparts.
> 
> I don't think that anyone is reasonably claiming that the CMB is, on its own, the source of the problems facing women in gaming.  If anything, it's either symptomatic of the existing issue, or a potentially exacerbating factor.  I will say that a reduction in the amount of pin-up style art over the years has made it easier for me to show off my D&D books to other women who show an interest in gaming.  Being able to show off the books without being embarrassed by the art and without having to say things like "I know, I know, but the game really is fun if you give it a chance" improves the accessibility of the game and helps grow the hobby.




It took me a long time to write up my previous post, so I didn't see this till just now. It clears up a lot.

Yes, there has definitely been a problem with overly-sexualized representations of females in gaming art. So the trick is how to portray women that are beautiful, attractive, and even sexy, without that being all they are. Certainly a tall order. Of course you can just _not_ portray them as sexy at all, but I think that is too far in the other direction.

I think some of the Pathfinder art has hit the mark. In my opinion their iconic barbarian, rogue, cleric and paladin are good. Their sorceress probably oversteps into overly-sexual area.

On the flip side D&D probably went to far the other way. The worst, in my opinion, is the barbarian. It's just some average joe in plain pants and a coat, carrying an axe. How is that a barbarian? Wheres the rage? Where's the physical power?

And the wizard is an old man with a beard again. Blah.

I'm trying to even think of any of the females that represent the classes and I'm drawing a blank. They are just so forgettable.

Ok, I looked up the rogue and she looks pretty good. Competent, reasonably dressed, and recognizably female (unlike the bard, which is a difficult call to make). Still managed to completely forget her though.


----------



## MechaPilot

Lord Twig said:


> I did not say anything about big, muscle bulging guys. Let alone that they were eye candy for ladies, just that loincloths were as common as chain mail bikinis. My wife and several other women I have talked to have expressed a similar view to what you have posted. But I guess it is true that the vast majority of loin cloth wearing males are indeed of the bulging muscle variety.




That the majority of the loincloth clad males have been of the bodybuilder body type has been my overall experience with loincloth clad men in fantasy rpg art.  That said, my experience is simply that, and I cannot claim to have experienced all of the fantasy art that is available for visual consumption.




Lord Twig said:


> And speaking of common misconceptions. The idea the nerds are jealous of jocks and want to be like them is BS. I was a big nerd in high school and had _no_ desire to have bulging muscles or to be anything like the jocks. They were a bunch of jerks? Why would I want to be anything like them? And you know where being big and strong gets you today? Nowhere. Unless, _maybe_, you are able to get on a sports team. But good luck with that. And anyway I don't like sports either! So yeah, really don't care to be all big and muscly. Maybe my friends and I were outliers, but it is definitely not universal.




I didn't say that nerds wanted to be like jocks.  I agree with you that saying nerds want to be like jocks would be BS.  I was commenting that nerds are often subject to the whims of the stronger and more popular, and that having the strength to make them back-off would be appealing.  The desire for power by the downtrodden is generally the nature of wish-fulfillment seen with regard to muscle-men.




Lord Twig said:


> All that said there is certainly a place for super muscly guys in RPGs. I mean, the Hulk was awesome in the first Avengers movie! So characters that can pull off impressive feats of strength can definitely be fun. Therefore they should be portrayed in the art. The same as a stealthy rogue or powerful spell caster.




I think there's room for all kinds of portrayals.  I don't even mind a small amount of the pin-up stuff, but I'd prefer if there was a rough balance between what appeals to men and women.  I'd also generally prefer if it makes sense.  The CMB really just doesn't make sense as armor, so it shouldn't be presented as if it were worn for protection.  However, I can't say I'd have an issue with a female caster in the slave Leia-ish outfit as long as there was also a shirtless Orlando Bloom-ish elf or swashbuckler.  And, naturally, I wouldn't want the pin-up art to represent a significant amount of the art in the book.




Lord Twig said:


> So apparently scantily clad guys with huge muscles are not a problem, because women aren't terribly interested in them. So are you suggesting that there should be more "dad bode" guys to provide eye candy for ladies? Or Bruce Lee, young Sean Connery or Benedict Cumberbatch types? (I had a nurse helping me at a hospital that went on and on about how sexy Cumberbatch was.)




Cumberbatch is kind of yummy.  But, I don't think there's anything wrong with including the wish-fulfillment art.  I just don't want art directors for the books to mistake those images as balancing the sexualized female imagery.  What I'd like to see is the female art focusing as much on competence and badassery as the male art.  I certainly don't have an issue with a smattering of pin-up style art, dividing it roughly equally between what appeals to men and to women.

Ultimately, what I want out of the art is this:
1) Cool, competent looking characters of both genders that people can look to for character inspiration
2) Pin-up art minimally present, and roughly balanced between male and female appeal
3) To be able to show the books to a girlfriend without feeling as if we're browsing a Victoria's Secret catalog together




Lord Twig said:


> And would it be acceptable to show scantily clad women if men _weren't_ attracted to them? That kinda suggests that women need to be covered up because men can't help themselves and will be unable to see an attractive woman without thinking about having sex with her.




The essential problem with scantily clad women is that they are almost always presented as being less-competent, less-prepared, less-sensible (especially if they expect a CMB to actually protect them from harm), and more fixated on having value through their appearance than are scantily clad males.  Scantily clad males, who are typically quite muscular, are generally presented as being strong enough and tough enough to deal with whatever comes their way.  Although, the simple fact that most scantily clad characters aren't shown with backpacks or other generally necessary adventuring gear makes them all seem less-prepared for the task than characters who are not scantily clad.


----------



## Gradine

I guess I'll take the unpopular position of the defending the original article in its entirety. There's been a lot of tone-policing and double-guessing the intentions of the author, even when they agree with her main theses, that I find to be pretty condescending.

I, personally, found absolutely nothing objectionable about this article. I agree with every word in it. I recognize that I am in the minority about that on this thread, in this community, in this hobby. I'll even go so far as to say that because of these things, some of the language and tone used in this article probably prevents it from being as effective or impactful as it otherwise could have.

And while I can only, as the rest you, speculate as to the author's intention, I submit the suggestion that that wasn't the point.

Tone-policing is a tricky, and many times infuriating, thing to do. I suspect most activists (certainly most activists I've worked with) know that your tone and how you craft your message has an impact on how _persuasive_ that message is. But sometimes the tone is part of the point. Sometimes, the tone has to communicate "this is how upset and pissed off all of this makes me". And if that happens to make other people more defensive than they otherwise would be, that's honestly their problem, not the author's. Because it would take a lot of gall to tell the author they should be less upset or pissed about this, no matter how much more "persuasive" a calmer exploration of the subject should be. We should all be as upset and pissed off as the author here is about harassment and violence and yes, terrorism (the purest definition of which is "causing terror" which is exactly what is happening; bombings and beheadings are tools of a certain kind of terrorist; not the definition of it), in our community. That more of us aren't is kind of the problem.

What's most condescending is the rush to declare her use of the term "terrorism" as a hyperbolic way to get her article noticed, which is frankly playing exactly into the "she's making it up for attention" narrative that makes it so easy for misogynists (or even non-misogynists who would otherwise be sympathetic) to so quickly and easily dismiss women who actually do report harassment and violence. To continue to regularly assert that that was her intention is actively harmful to any attempt at meaningful progress on this issue.

I, for one, have no reason to doubt her earnestness in the least bit, because I happen to agree with her 100%. I find no part of it hyperbolic or overblown, and most of my real-life gamer friends feel exactly the same way. It's totally okay to disagree with her analysis. I would argue it's not okay to question her sincerity because of it.


----------



## Lord Twig

So I totally agree with [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] last post. But instead of just replying with a "Yep, you're right." I figured I would do some penance for contributing to a derailment of the thread and make some suggestions or actually dealing with harassment in gaming.

Pretty standard stuff I guess, but...

1. Official anti-harassment policy published by Cons and handed out to all Con goers.
2. Training on how to handle harassment claims for Con representatives and security.
3. Guidelines given to (probably volunteer) GMs and/or referees to avoid language, topics or themes that are racist, sexist or likely to cause emotional distress (torture, rape, etc.).

Just a start. Discussion of what an effective anit-harassment policy would be is obviously necessary.


----------



## Gradine

To make one last observation and speak about the common question "is this really worse in our community than it is any others?" From my personal observations... yeah, a little bit. Maybe a lot.

Several years ago I ran a series of roundtable discussions on sexualized violence in the online gaming community, so I'll grant you that I've done mountains of research on the subject. While I was at the time primarily focused on video games (this was post-dickwolves but pre-gamergate), I found a ton, and I mean a ton, of stories from female players along the "my DM had NPCs capture and rape my PC" meme. And by a ton, I mean if I had a nickel for every story along these lines I came across (and have heard since), I could buy myself a movie ticket with it. Maybe a small popcorn, too. It's depressingly, frustratingly, common. 

And I've heard plenty of these stories from the perpetrator's side too. These are not all (or even mostly) sexually confused adolescents. These are adult men who know exactly what they're doing and aren't shy about admitting it. It's about putting women in their place. It's about terrorizing them.


----------



## MechaPilot

Lord Twig said:


> So I totally agree with [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] last post. But instead of just replying with a "Yep, you're right." I figured I would do some penance for contributing to a derailment of the thread and make some suggestions or actually dealing with harassment in gaming.
> 
> Pretty standard stuff I guess, but...
> 
> 1. Official anti-harassment policy published by Cons and handed out to all Con goers.
> 2. Training on how to handle harassment claims for Con representatives and security.
> 3. Guidelines given to (probably volunteer) GMs and/or referees to avoid language, topics or themes that are racist, sexist or likely to cause emotional distress (torture, rape, etc.).
> 
> Just a start. Discussion of what an effective anit-harassment policy would be is obviously necessary.




I think all of those are a good suggestions, and I agree that discussing the workings of an effective anti-harassment policy is definitely necessary.  Having never been to a con or engaged in organized play, I don't know what the harassment policies are for those things, but if we can find one that does seem to be effective, that would be good basis for crafting a more broadly applicable anti-harassment policy for gaming gatherings.

I do want to point out that there are three general types of harassment.
1) Non-criminal verbal harassment.  E.g. Belittling and berating someone.
2) Criminal verbal harassment.  E.g. threatening someone.
3) Criminal non-verbal harassment.  E.g. assault, battery, and rape.

This is why I will reiterate that security cameras are part of a well-rounded solution.  Security cameras won't be very good for picking up verbal harassment, but they are good for witnessing criminal non-verbal harassment such as gropings.  It's all too easy for a person who's been groped to have no actual proof of what happened.  I know that if I were being groped, my first instinct would be to remove the offending hand from my person, not to pull my phone out of my purse and catch it on camera (even if that were my first inclination, the offending party could just pull away as soon as my phone comes out of my purse).  Once the offending appendage has been removed, there really is no proof that it happened (unless it left something traceable behind, which, eww).  Cameras can also discourage or help document thefts and other criminal activities.


----------



## Lord Twig

Gradine said:


> To make one last observation and speak about the common question "is this really worse in our community than it is any others?" From my personal observations... yeah, a little bit. Maybe a lot.
> 
> Several years ago I ran a series of roundtable discussions on sexualized violence in the online gaming community, so I'll grant you that I've done mountains of research on the subject. While I was at the time primarily focused on video games (this was post-dickwolves but pre-gamergate), I found a ton, and I mean a ton, of stories from female players along the "my DM had NPCs capture and rape my PC" meme. And by a ton, I mean if I had a nickel for every story along these lines I came across (and have heard since), I could buy myself a movie ticket with it. Maybe a small popcorn, too. It's depressingly, frustratingly, common.
> 
> And I've heard plenty of these stories from the perpetrator's side too. These are not all (or even mostly) sexually confused adolescents. These are adult men who know exactly what they're doing and aren't shy about admitting it. It's about putting women in their place. It's about terrorizing them.




Well I'll add one. I had a DM (Asian Male) who had his NPC (Male, undetermined race, probably white) rape my character (I'm a white male, so was my character). I won't go into specifics, but he thought it was hilariously funny. I didn't think so. So I refused to play the rest of that game. We were teenagers at the time, not that that excuses anything, but it unfortunately typical of that age.

After that the rest of the group agreed that we wouldn't allow that kind of thing in the future and we mostly forgot about it after about a week. There were a couple of times where my friend brought it up afterwards, still thinking it was funny. I stated that it never happened because I left the game and it was my character. Eventually he dropped it. Maybe he finally matured a bit.

Anyway, it took me a while to remember when anything like this had ever happened in any of the games I played. That was the only time I can think of. I've played with quite a few female players and nothing ever happened to them, or any of the other players, in my presence.


----------



## Eltab

Gradine said:


> I found a ton of stories from female players along the "my DM had NPCs capture and rape my PC" meme.



I had a DM who was using an NPC (lord of local castle) to try to seduce his IRL girlfriend's character.  She was less than enthusiastic about it.
During a pizza break I went over to him and said, "You do realize that you are trying to seduce her in front of four voyeurs, right?  I mean the rest of us."
She blushed dark red, his jaw dropped and he went pale, and nothing more was heard of the idea for the rest of the session.


----------



## Eltab

Umbran said:


> This will be relevant for any number of cases where one is part of, or heir to, a group that committed some wrongs.



Groups do not commit wrongs.  Persons commit wrongs.
Time and again, blaming the group directs punishment onto the wrong persons.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Eltab said:


> Groups do not commit wrongs.  Persons commit wrongs.
> Time and again, blaming the group directs punishment onto the wrong persons.




Actually, while persons commit individual acts, it is not uncommon for groups of people to commit wrongs.  See "mobs", "invaders", "gangs" etc.

Recognition of group culpability is hard coded in law in many western legal systems.  See "felony murder" and similar laws.

And again, when a group _knowingly & intentionally_ allows miscreants within it to misbehave, they are morally, ethically, and- occasionally- legally culpable for allowing that behavior to occur.  Gotta drain the swamp to get rid of the 'skeeters.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> The writing eloquence of those who have tried to draw attention to the issue is not the issue.




Sure, it is.  Because posters have tried to excuse the use of cheap shots (such as "terrorist") on the basis that not using cheap shots means that the message won't be heard.

So, this is _entirely_ about a writer's ability to write persuasively.  It is about the piss poor excuse that such cheap shots are needed in order to be heard.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Some of the behavior described in the original article- threats of assault, rape or killing- in order to modify the writer's behavior can actually sustain a conviction for making "terroristc threats", punishable by up to 20 years in prison, depending on jurisdiction and seriousness of the threat.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/terrorist-threats.htm

So, no, her writing isn't an issue at all.  It isn't even really hyperbole.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

MechaPilot said:


> to claim that the depiction of females in gaming art is not relevant to how females are seen seems naive to me.  The overly-sexualized style with which females are often depicted in fantasy art presents women who are typically less-competent, less-prepared, and more fixated on appearance than their male counterparts.




Which females in CMB are shown as less-competent, less-prepared, and more fixated on appearance?
When I think of women in CMB, I think of 
Red Sonja, http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...nja_001.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070305144409

Belit the Pirate, http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/2/29837/2727659-belit_dark_horse.jpg

and, sure, let's throw Wonder Woman in with the others (though she doesn't technically wear CMB, her bikini is magic)  http://www.onemillioncomix.com/onem...ds/2013/11/superman-wonderwoman-2-750x400.jpg

etc. "Less-competent, less-prepared, and more fixated on appearance" are simply not terms I associate with these characters.  They are bad ass alpha females who kick ass and take names.
In fact, many feminists think Wonder Woman is a great fantasy heroine role model for young girls.  (IMHO they'd probably consider Belit and Red Sonja likewise, if they took the time to learn about these characters).


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some of the behavior described in the original article- threats of assault, rape or killing- in order to modify the writer's behavior can actually sustain a conviction for making "terroristc threats", punishable by up to 20 years in prison, depending on jurisdiction and seriousness of the threat.
> 
> http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/terrorist-threats.htm
> 
> So, no, her writing isn't an issue at all.  It isn't even really hyperbole.




Examining her words in her context


> White male terrorism is the white underbelly of the gaming community, meant to terrify and disrupt the lives of those who threaten the status quo by race, gender, or sexuality. It succeeds because the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists. At best, these cowards ignore the problem. At worst, they join the terrorists in blaming their victims for the abuse. The point of online terrorism is that it is endless, omnipresent, and anonymous.



Why is it "white male terrorism" instead of "sexist terrorism"?  Why does she double-down on "white" with phrases like "white underbelly"?  Why does she call the majority of men "cowards"?  Has she met the majority of men?  If she is having so much trouble raising awareness, why doesn't she think that men have likewise tried to raise awareness and have failed not because they are "cowards," but for the same reasons she has?  "Omnipresent"  Really?  After lambasting WHITE MEN, she tosses in a word like "omnipresent," but no?  She doesn't actually mean "omnipresent," right?  She actually means that sexist terrorists exists, right?  Only, that's not all that she's saying.

In the final tally, her words do nothing to help the situation.  Sexism exists.  Sexism is awful. Some of the stories she told made me nauseous when I read them.  Men and women, both, can be victims of sexism.  They need to find allies, not paint an entire group of people with one giant, broad brush.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> Why is it "white male terrorism" instead of "sexist terrorism"?
> 
> (Edit)
> She doesn't actually mean "omnipresent," right? She actually means that sexist terrorists exists, right? Only, that's not all that she's saying.
> 
> (Edit)
> Men and women, both, can be victims of sexism.




In case you missed it, she used the acronym "POC" to describe certain victims of similar mistreatment.  That acronym stands for "persons of color"- hence "white" terrorism.

You can also note that 90%+ (could have been all- I don't currently feel the need to go back and check each one) of her personal AND 2nd hand anecdotal exemplars involved heterosexual harassment of women.  Hence "male" terrorism.

Given the same personal and anecdotal accounts, coupled with the documented reports of other women in the hobby as participants, reviewers/journalists, and content creators- some recounted as the personal experiences of participants in this very thread-  "omnipresent" may be hyperbolic, but not by a hell of a lot.  One might even characterize it as a slight exaggeration for emphasis.

Are there women in the hobby victimizing men?  Homosexual men or women in the hobby victimizing those of their own gender?  It IS possible.  But in a niche hobby with an overwhelmingly white male demographic, and a statistical average rate of homosexuality in the USA roughly the same as that of left-handedness, odds favor that most of the bad actors will be straight white males, and most of the victims being women.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I mean, let's be honest here: if someone were to do an ENWorld poll with some version of this question:



> I have been a victim of verbal or physical sexual harassment in a game store, game group, convention or other gaming environment, and I am a:
> 
> 1) Male
> 
> 2) Female




What do you think the breakdown would be?


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Darkwing Duck said:


> So, this is _entirely_ about a writer's ability to write persuasively.  It is about the piss poor excuse that such cheap shots are needed in order to be heard.



It's not a cheap shot at all. 

On the contrary, it's dead on accurate. 

And before you trot out the tired false comparison about men being victims too, make sure you can provide examples of male gamers, or men involved in the gaming industry, that receive rape threats and death threats on the same scale that women do, to the point that they fear for their personal safety and that of their families, and worry over their job security. 

That's part of the real life problem being discussed here. 

******

Morrus mentioned earlier that he's not sure about how to keep the discussion focused. I'd say one way to do it is for EN World to write it into the Code of Conduct that the website recognizes that harassment exists in gaming, it is largely targeted at women, and such is to the great detriment of the gaming community. 

Because of this, discussions on harassment will be moderated tightly. The value of generating useful discussion on how to deal with the problem will be emphasized. Complaints about the sources of information are not allowed. 

Or something to that effect.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I'd say one way to do it is for EN World to write it into the Code of Conduct that the website recognizes that harassment exists in gaming, it is largely targeted at women, and such is to the great detriment of the gaming community.




I don't think that would have the effect you desire.  Even if discussions like this get heated or ugly, a policy along those lines might ultimately end meaningful discussions the topic on the merits.  It's too specific.

My own perspective on the 2 recent threads is this: while things HAVE gotten ugly at times, on the whole, I have personally been enlightened as to the pervasiveness & breadth of the issue.  I don't attend that many gaming cons.  99% of my gaming exeperience has been in groups dominated by straight white males- thinking HARD, I can name 6 women, 1 gay guy, two black guys and one Asian guy with whom I've gamed since 1977.  So a lot of what has been described here is alien to my personal experience, and something I only hear about when things get truly out of control.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

sanishiver said:


> I
> And before you trot out the tired false comparison about men being victims too, make sure you can provide examples of male gamers, or men involved in the gaming industry, that receive rape threats and death threats on the same scale that women do,




This offends the hell out of me.  First, there is NO documentation in her letter which allows actual fact checking of any of her stories. so you are favoring a double standard.  Second, you are further victimizing male victims by marginalizing them with the piss poor excuse men are the primary players of RPGs.  This is the same dynamic which has made it hard to respond appropriately to male victims of domestic violence, male rape victims (which is worse given Hermessmann v. Seyer), (such marginalizing enforced by the FBI definition of rape, making it difficult to get good records on male victims)  etc.


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> Sure, it is.  Because posters have tried to excuse the use of cheap shots (such as "terrorist") on the basis that not using cheap shots means that the message won't be heard.
> 
> So, this is _entirely_ about a writer's ability to write persuasively.  It is about the piss poor excuse that such cheap shots are needed in order to be heard.




And that's the problem with all these identical threads. That's the takeaway, that it's about a writer's ability to write well, not about the issue of harassment.


----------



## Obryn

Darkwing Duck said:


> This offends the hell out of me.  First, there is NO documentation in her letter which allows actual fact checking of any of her stories.



You missed the Winnipeg Free Press article?


----------



## Rottle

Obryn said:


> You missed the Winnipeg Free Press article?




I really wish we could move away from that artical, it's become a poison pill to this subject.  

Is the artical really more important then the topic?   Is it?   Seriously if one artical matters more then harassment in the gaming community then maybe we can just assume harassment is so minor it simply doesn't matter.  Both sides keep bringing up this poison pill, but I am mystified why those who want to make change keep allowing themselves to get dragged back into this quagmire.  

Please if you really want to address the topic of harassment and what we as gamers can do to make it safer for each other, please do not allow yourself to be dragged into the debates about the artical.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Obryn said:


> You missed the Winnipeg Free Press article?




I'm not finding that.

I found this post http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ge41&p=6878248&highlight=Winnipeg#post6878248  but it highlights the lack of ability to do any fact checking on her claims.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Rottle said:


> maybe we can just assume harassment is so minor it simply doesn't matter.




To me, the issue isn't about whether harassment is so minor it simply doesn't matter.  ALL harassment matters.  The issue is what to do about it.  Using cheap shots like "white male terrorism" is counter-productive.  In fact, it is harmful.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> And that's the problem with all these identical threads. That's the takeaway, that it's about a writer's ability to write well, not about the issue of harassment.




If the original writer made the attempt to write persuasively, maturely, and appropriately about the harassment, the issue wouldn't be about their inability to write well.


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> If the original writer made the attempt to write persuasively, maturely, and appropriately about the harassment, the issue wouldn't be about their inability to write well.




I'm not going to be drawn into hypocritically contributing to the problem I'm describing. That means I'm absolutely not going to discuss the author's writing style. 

Still not talking about harassment!


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> I'm not going to be drawn into hypocritically contributing to the problem I'm describing. That means I'm absolutely not going to discuss the author's writing style.
> 
> Still not talking about harassment!




I see no value in approaching the problem in a counter-productive manner (promoted by her writing style).


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> I see no value in approaching the problem in a counter-productive manner (promoted by her writing style).




Still not talking about harassment.


----------



## Rottle

Darkwing Duck said:


> To me, the issue isn't about whether harassment is so minor it simply doesn't matter.  ALL harassment matters.  The issue is what to do about it.  Using cheap shots like "white male terrorism" is counter-productive.  In fact, it is harmful.




If all harassment matters then surely it's easy enough to move past the cheap shots and get to the fixing.   Seriously if someone is on fire and calls me a name, that doesn't mean I let them burn.  Grow a little thicker skin to her name calling, or just ignore her and her artical and get to dealing with harassment which we both agree cannot be allowed to continue.

Respect and support for each other.  Let's all try to do a bit better with it each day.


----------



## Gradine

So you agree that harassment is a problem and worthy of discussion, but not as much of a problem or worthy of discussion as one woman's tone and phrasing? I'm sorry, but that is the textbook definition of missing the point.

A real ally doesn't disrupt a conversation about a systemic problem like harassment to declare personal umbrage at one individual's use of identity politics terminology. A real ally doesn't condescend about the person's "lack of maturity" even when they disagree with particular parts of their analysis, or if they think a certain sort of person might take it personally. A real ally wouldn't take it personally, because a real ally understands that it's not about them. A real ally understands a person can only put up with this crap for so long before needing to just f'in rant about it. A real ally understands that sometimes a person's just got to speak their own God damn truth.

What gets missed in this is that a post on a personal blog does not constitute outreach to a skeptical community. It is many ways preaching to a choir, and yes yes efficacy and impact yadda yadda, again, not the freaking point. Yes it ends in a call to action, but again a call to action to her followers, who are presumably on board with her analysis in the first place. 

Would she have toned down her rhetoric, used more accessible language, if she were directly addressing and attempting to gain the buy-in of the gaming community? My guess would be probably. That's kind of what the folks in this thread have been attempting, with admittedly varying degrees of success (myself included). It's a hard topic not to get passionate about, which is frustrating when the opposition confuses passion with immaturity.

At the end of the day though, this thread isn't about one woman's one blog post leading a sole crusade against harassment in gaming. This thread, as both the title and Fearless Leader suggest, is about Harassment in Gaming.


----------



## billd91

Darkwing Duck said:


> To me, the issue isn't about whether harassment is so minor it simply doesn't matter.  ALL harassment matters.  The issue is what to do about it.  Using cheap shots like "white male terrorism" is counter-productive.  In fact, it is harmful.




Welcome to the "All live matter" deflection of the harassment issue. Again. For all harassment to matter, the harassment of women and minorities has to be made to matter. That's the crux of Black lives matter as well. Sure all lives and all harassment incidents matter - but in practice, it's clear they don't because of these particular weak points that are being highlighted by African-Americans in the Black lives matter movement and by women complaining about being harassed and the target of sexism in gaming culture.

As a certain cartoon illustrates, you don't pour water on the house not on fire saying "All houses matter" when there's one burning next door. The white male house isn't the one on fire.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

billd91 said:


> For all harassment to matter, the harassment of women and minorities has to be made to matter. .




Sure, the harassment of women and minorities has to matter.  The sexual harassment of males and whites needs to matter, too.
Just a few weeks ago, a feminist actually asserted to me that we shouldn't have _any_ discussion of sexual harassment of men because, she asserted, it takes attention away from sexual harassment of women.

I'm confident in asserting that statutory rape jail time when women rape boys is almost certainly shorter than when men rape girls. (actually, according to a Star-Ledger report, 54% of male suspects go to prison, 44% of women go to prison, and men serve an average 1.5 x longer jail sentences).  Men are raped more often than women.  But, we can't talk about any of that because it doesn't fit the bulli liberal metanarrative.


----------



## Obryn

Darkwing Duck said:


> I'm not finding that.
> 
> I found this post http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ge41&p=6878248&highlight=Winnipeg#post6878248  but it highlights the lack of ability to do any fact checking on her claims.



http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/taking-a-stand-against-abuse-284204591.html


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Gradine said:


> So you agree that harassment is a problem and worthy of discussion, but not as much of a problem or worthy of discussion as one woman's tone and phrasing? I'm sorry, but that is the textbook definition of missing the point.




Yes, the woman fit the textbook definition of missing the point. That's pretty clear.

We need to address the problem, not tolerate inaccuracies and fear-mongering.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Obryn said:


> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/taking-a-stand-against-abuse-284204591.html




I don't understand the point you are making.  What happened to this woman was horrendous.  It should not be tolerated, EVER.
And, alongside her (not "instead of", there's room for every victim on that shelf), let's put the fact that, according to a recent survey, one-third of men have reported sexual harassment in the workplace at some point in their lives and it is very, very difficult for male victims to be taken seriously.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Rottle said:


> If all harassment matters then surely it's easy enough to move past the cheap shots and get to the fixing.   Seriously if someone is on fire and calls me a name, that doesn't mean I let them burn.  Grow a little thicker skin to her name calling, or just ignore her and her artical and get to dealing with harassment which we both agree cannot be allowed to continue.
> 
> Respect and support for each other.  Let's all try to do a bit better with it each day.




With all the slander going on, a person on fire will be afraid to go to people who can help put out the fire because the fire victim has heard all this slander and has come to believe that the people who can help will, instead, just dump gasoline on them.

Like I said, it isn't helpful.


----------



## Obryn

Darkwing Duck said:


> I don't understand the point you are making.  What happened to this woman was horrendous.  It should not be tolerated, EVER.
> And, alongside her (not "instead of", there's room for every victim on that shelf), let's put the fact that, according to a recent survey, one-third of men have reported sexual harassment in the workplace at some point in their lives and it is very, very difficult for male victims to be taken seriously.



You complained about the lack of "documentation" and the ability to verify her claims. I provided it.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Obryn said:


> You complained about the lack of "documentation" and the ability to verify her claims. I provided it.




You provided one isolated example.  There's not much that can be learned from one data point.
I do believe that sexual harassment exists against women.  I think that's obvious.  But, the argument was made that we shouldn't talk about male victims because of lack of documentation.  I pointed out that the woman who wrote the original letter provided no means to fact check.
You've provided a means to fact check one of her stories.  Is that sufficient to support the claim that we shouldn't talk about male victims because of lack of documentation?

If you say, "yes," (which I think would be disingenuous, but *shrug*), then I give you this.  In asking 40,000 households about rape, the National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that 38% of rape incidents were against men.  The 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey added a category called "being made to penetrate" and discovered that the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized with 1,270 million women and 1,267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.  A recent analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics turned up that 46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator.  In Juvenile Correction Facilities, 89% of sexual misconduct was reported by boys reporting abuse by a female staff member.


----------



## Obryn

Darkwing Duck said:


> You provided one isolated example.  There's not much that can be learned from one data point.



Okay. So why did you ask for documentation of her claims, then, if it isn't important?


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Obryn said:


> Okay. So why did you ask for documentation of her claims, then, if it isn't important?




Because I thought that everyone would agree that it was important and provide compelling documentation, not an isolated incident.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> If the original writer made the attempt to write persuasively, maturely, and appropriately about the harassment, the issue wouldn't be about their inability to write well.




The issue ISN'T about her ability to write well.  Dismissing the validity of her claims or choosing not to engage in a discussion of them on the merits because of the relative skill with which she makes the claim is a logical fallacy.

If you saw a woman running down the street chased by a hockey-masked, machete wielding man, and she was just uttering an inarticulate, wordless scream, would you sit there and say, "Well, she could have phrased that better..."?

So, what ideas do you have about reducing sexual harassment in our shared hobby?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> Because I thought that everyone would agree that it was important and provide compelling documentation, not an isolated incident.




As noted, several of your fellow ENWorlders have also put forth claims of similar repulsive behavior.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The issue ISN'T about her ability to write well.  Dismissing the validity of her claims or choosing to engage in a discussion of them on the merits because of the relative skill with which she makes the claim is a logical fallacy.
> 
> If you saw a woman running down the street chased by a hockey-masked, machete wielding man, and she was just uttering an inarticulate, wordless scream, would you sit there and say, "Well, she could have phrased that better..."?
> 
> So, what ideas do you have about reducing sexual harassment in our shared hobby?




What she's saying is in error and harmful.  The fact that you think we should ignore that rather than address the actual problem (which is sexual harassment, not "white male terrorism") in a responsible manner disturbs me.


----------



## Rottle

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As noted, several of your fellow ENWorlders have also put forth claims of similar repulsive behavior.




neither her claims nor any by posters here matter as much as making the change in our collective behavior.  Not to me anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> What she's saying is in error and harmful.  The fact that you think we should ignore that rather than address the actual problem (which is sexual harassment, not "white male terrorism") in a responsible manner disturbs me.




You have not actually  demonstrated that what she has said- that white males in our hobby have made terroristic threats; that other white males in our hobby have allowed an environment in which the behaviors of the miscreants in question is tolerated to continue- is in error.  The fact that you continue to think we should ignore her plea because of the way she chooses to express her concerns instead of discussing its merits in a responsible manner disturbs _me_.


----------



## Rottle

Darkwing Duck said:


> What she's saying is in error and harmful.  The fact that you think we should ignore that rather than address the actual problem (which is sexual harassment, not "white male terrorism") in a responsible manner disturbs me.




I do indeed think we need to move past her words.  Again you seriously think her words matter more then making the gaming word harassment free?   I question your logic there.  What is there really to discuss about her words, they are over the top and only some unknown amount of harassment at a store she worked at can be verified...who cares.   You said before all harassment must end, so stop with the artical grow a thicker skin see the pain harassment causes others instead of focusing on the pain this artical causes you.  

From here on out I will be ignoring any mention of the artical in this thread, please join me in doing so.  Let's talk how to spot harassment, how to help those being harassed, how to react to harassment and in the end how to make it happen as little as possible.


----------



## Rottle

if you are being harassed what would help you?

What should I do as just another person seeing the behavior?   Would just standing beside you and voicing my support of you personally help, should I be very public in my support?  Should I go to someone in authority and get them involved?  Should I comfort the offender personally?  What would make you know you are safe, that I will stand beside you, that you are not alone?

Real question I know sometimes I get over protective, I have three sisters and have been told at least a few times I didn't need to step in they could handle it themselves.  But their my sisters, they know I have their backs, maybe with a stranger I need to react differently.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

My take on it is that while Woman X might not need you to stand up, women Y, Z and others might feel emboldened knowing that there are others willing to speak up and help, and that the battle for respect is not one that needs to be fought individually.  Allies exist.

Which could translate into others standing up for themselves...and for others.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Darkwing Duck said:


> First, there is NO documentation in her letter which allows actual fact checking of any of her stories.



It's a post to tumblr, not a news expose in the Sunday edition of The New York Times. 

People who relate their experiences on a blog or on a place like tumblr are getting their thoughts out, they are talking about their lives, and (in some cases) relating their life experiences.

They are not journalists whom we are required to hold to a certain standard. 



Darkwing Duck said:


> Second, you are further victimizing male victims by marginalizing them with the piss poor excuse men are the primary players of RPGs.



This is just the sort of false comparison I was talking about.

One, not incidentally, that has already been discussed at length upthread. 

Now then, the issue of women gamers being harassed online (rape threats, death threats, doxing) is widespread. It's been covered online, and to a much lesser degree in print. The topic of harassment at cons and game stories has received less coverage (to my knowledge; somebody correct me here if I am wrong), but the issue is cropping up more and more. 

In my observation, when people bring up the issue of sexual harassment of males as a response to the topic of this thread, it's usually done to promote one or more of the following bad ideas/false claims:

1. The argument that talking about the issue of harassment of women means male victims (to the extent they actually exist) are de facto being ignored (they aren't).

2. That idea that the mere act of discussing the issue of harassment of women in gaming means everyone participating believes men are not harassed, ever, in gaming (the logic of which is dead on arrival). 

3. The claim that because sexual abuse of all genders is widespread in the world today, therefore men are harassed in gaming just as much as women are (they aren't), so any claim of disproportionate abuse of one gender over another in gaming must be false. 

4. To suppress the very important idea that a rising tide lifts all boats--meaning any emphasis on one form of sexual harassment raises awareness of the issue of harassment in gaming in general, and so raises awareness of the issue beyond gaming, so that all forms of harassment are more likely to be recognized and addressed/not tolerated when they happen.

These are all examples of arguments that I believe should not be tolerated in a discussion of harassment of women in gaming.


----------



## billd91

Darkwing Duck said:


> I'm confident in asserting that statutory rape jail time when women rape boys is almost certainly shorter than when men rape girls. (actually, according to a Star-Ledger report, 54% of male suspects go to prison, 44% of women go to prison, and men serve an average 1.5 x longer jail sentences).  Men are raped more often than women.  But, we can't talk about any of that because it doesn't fit the bulli liberal metanarrative.




Your may note that the Star-Ledger report also analyzed 3x as many male offenders as female and the sentence often was affected by the willingness of the victim to participate and male victims participate at a much lower rate, far more often not seeing themselves as victims of statutory rape. So let's cut the liberal narrative BS. It's just more deflection.


----------



## Rottle

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My take on it is that while Woman X might not need you to stand up, women Y, Z and others might feel emboldened knowing that there are others willing to speak up and help, and that the battle for respect is not one that needs to be fought individually.  Allies exist.
> 
> Which could translate into others standing up for themselves...and for others.




I just don't want to disempower as I try to help.  But I see your point and agree. Better to offer help and be turned down then not offer it when needed.  Still I really don't want to disempower someone in my effort to support them.    And I totally get my view point is skewed by my size and being male, so just because I don't feel disempowered doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.  Life is complicated.


----------



## MechaPilot

Rottle said:


> if you are being harassed what would help you? What should I do as just another person seeing the behavior?   Would just standing beside you and voicing my support of you personally help, should I be very public in my support?  Should I go to someone in authority and get them involved?  Should I *comfort* the offender personally?  What would make you know you are safe, that I will stand beside you, that you are not alone?
> 
> Real question I know sometimes I get over protective, I have three sisters and have been told at least a few times I didn't need to step in they could handle it themselves.  But their my sisters, they know I have their backs, maybe with a stranger I need to react differently.




Because I know what you meant, I found a small spelling error that you made somewhat amusing: bolded for reference.  I am entirely assuming that you meant "confront the offender," as your posting history in this thread would seem to support.


Regarding your question, I think the only good answer is "it depends on how I'm being harassed at the time."

I've described my harassment experience a few times now.  If you missed it previously, you can find it here.  In my case, I would have desperately loved for something as small as any of the other players smacking the DM on the arm and saying "Dude!  Not cool!"  Really, anything that made me feel like any member of that group had an ounce of humanity, and wasn't just interested in getting their jollies by watching me squirm at graphic descriptions of being raped, would have been welcome.

If the harassment is of a criminal level, for example if someone groped me or made threats against me, I'd likewise appreciate someone calling the guy out for being a jerk.  But, even more than that I'd appreciate a witness to the groping being willing to be a witness, and to tell security and the police what happened (assuming I reported it.  I know that I would most likely want to report it, but some women will just want to put it behind them).

Also, if I was being harassed in a non-criminal way I wouldn't have a problem with a man asking if I wanted him to get the attention of someone I could report the harassment to.  If I felt I could handle it myself, I could politely decline the offer before cussing out the jerk harassing me.  If I felt the harassment was so out of hand I couldn't handle it myself, I'd be grateful for the offer.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Darkwing Duck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What she's saying is in error and harmful. The fact that you think we should ignore that rather than address the actual problem (which is sexual harassment, not "white male terrorism") in a responsible manner disturbs me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not actually  demonstrated that what she has said
Click to expand...



She harmfully misidentifies the problem as "white male terrorism."  Read the title of her paper.  It doesn't say "Tabletop Gaming has a Sexual Harassment Problem."  It says, "Tabletop Gaming has a White Male Terrorism Problem."
Misidentifying the problem, then arguing that misidentifying the problem doesn't matter, is NOT helpful to ANY sexual victim.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

billd91 said:


> Your may note that the Star-Ledger report also analyzed 3x as many male offenders as female



and..?  Your point..?



> and the sentence often was affected by the willingness of the victim to participate and male victims participate at a much lower rate, far more often not seeing themselves as victims of statutory rape. So let's cut the liberal narrative BS. It's just more deflection.




When a woman is unwilling to come forth to testify, it is because the judicial system is going to victimize them all over again, (the BS liberal metanarrative says).  When men are unwilling to come forth to testify, its their fault they don't get justice (the same metanarrative says)


----------



## Darkwing Duck

sanishiver said:


> In my observation, when people bring up the issue of sexual harassment of males as a response to the topic of this thread, it's usually done to promote one or more of the following bad ideas/false claims:
> 
> 1. The argument that talking about the issue of harassment of women means male victims (to the extent they actually exist) are de facto being ignored (they aren't).




I have had women tell me the opposite - that talking about male victims means that female victims are being ignored.  I've never heard the claim that talking about female victims means that male victims are being ignored.  Throughout this entire discussion, I've said that there is room for ALL victims.  You and others like you are the ones protesting discussing male victims.



sanishiver said:


> 2. That idea that the mere act of discussing the issue of harassment of women in gaming means everyone participating believes men are not harassed, ever, in gaming (the logic of which is dead on arrival).



  I never claimed that everyone believes that men are not harassed.  I have been told that discussing male victims alongside female victims is wrong unless we can document cases of male victims (even though such documentation of female victims wasn't required by the person who made that claim).



sanishiver said:


> 3. The claim that because sexual abuse of all genders is widespread in the world today, therefore men are harassed in gaming just as much as women are (they aren't), so any claim of disproportionate abuse of one gender over another in gaming must be false.



By simple math, since most people are heterosexual and men are the primary consumers of RPGs, there probably is more sexual abuse of women in RPGs.  I never claimed otherwise.  What I did claim is that this does not give justification to marginalize male victims.



sanishiver said:


> 4. To suppress the very important idea that a rising tide lifts all boats--meaning any emphasis on one form of sexual harassment raises awareness of the issue of harassment in gaming in general, and so raises awareness of the issue beyond gaming, so that all forms of harassment are more likely to be recognized and addressed/not tolerated when they happen.



I'm not the one here protesting mentioning victimization of both sexes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> She harmfully misidentifies the problem as "white male terrorism."  Read the title of her paper.  It doesn't say "Tabletop Gaming has a Sexual Harassment Problem."  It says, "Tabletop Gaming has a White Male Terrorism Problem."
> Misidentifying the problem, then arguing that misidentifying the problem doesn't matter, is NOT helpful to ANY sexual victim.



Sorry, no- addressed that "white male" part of this thing a few pages ago:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> In case you missed it, she used the acronym "POC" to describe certain victims of similar mistreatment.  That acronym stands for "persons of color"- hence "white" terrorism.
> 
> You can also note that 90%+ (could have been all- I don't currently feel the need to go back and check each one) of her personal AND 2nd hand anecdotal exemplars involved heterosexual harassment of women.  Hence "male" terrorism.
> 
> Given the same personal and anecdotal accounts, coupled with the documented reports of other women in the hobby as participants, reviewers/journalists, and content creators- some recounted as the personal experiences of participants in this very thread-  "omnipresent" may be hyperbolic, but not by a hell of a lot.  One might even characterize it as a slight exaggeration for emphasis.
> 
> Are there women in the hobby victimizing men?  Homosexual men or women in the hobby victimizing those of their own gender?  It IS possible.  But in a niche hobby with an overwhelmingly white male demographic, and a statistical average rate of homosexuality in the USA roughly the same as that of left-handedness, odds favor that most of the bad actors will be straight white males, and most of the victims being women.




See also this post re: "terrorism"


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some of the behavior described in the original article- threats of assault, rape or killing- in order to modify the writer's behavior can actually sustain a conviction for making "terroristc threats", punishable by up to 20 years in prison, depending on jurisdiction and seriousness of the threat.
> 
> http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/terrorist-threats.htm
> 
> So, no, her writing isn't an issue at all.  It isn't even really hyperbole.




Adding "white male" and "terrorism" together, we get "white male terrorism" as alleged.


----------



## Azzy

Darkwing Duck said:


> I see no value in approaching the problem in a counter-productive manner (promoted by her writing style).




I find no value in whinging about the author's writing style.


----------



## Azzy

Darkwing Duck said:


> What she's saying is in error and harmful.  The fact that you think we should ignore that rather than address the actual problem (which is sexual harassment, not "white male terrorism") in a responsible manner disturbs me.




The fact that you're more concerned about someone who has experienced harassment discussing it in a "responsible manner" than actually discussing what the community can do to deter this sort of reprehensible behavior disturbs and disgusts me.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Azzy said:


> The fact that you're more concerned about someone who has experienced harassment discussing it in a "responsible manner" than actually discussing what the community can do to deter this sort of reprehensible behavior disturbs and disgusts me.




Only a "responsible manner" is constructive.
Tell me, if I were to be raped and, in response to my rape, I painted all black men as rapists, would that be responsible?  would it be constructive?  would it even matter to you or would you be too wrapped up in the delusion that correctly identifying the perpetrators isn't necessary for " the community to deter this sort of reprehensible behavior"?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Strawman spotted!

She didn't vilify all white males, nor even all white males in the hobby.  Operating from personal experience, the reports of others and the easily verified demographics that white males dominate the hobby on the USA, she posited that most of the harassment of women in the hobby has been and continues to be originating with white males.

While you continue to attack the form of her assertions, do you have ANYTHING constructive to say about how to deal with the underlying problem on the merits?


----------



## Azzy

Darkwing Duck said:


> Only a "responsible manner" is constructive.
> Tell me, if I were to be raped and, in response to my rape, I painted all black men as rapists, would that be responsible?  would it be constructive?  would it even matter to you or would you be too wrapped up in the delusion that correctly identifying the perpetrators isn't necessary for " the community to deter this sort of reprehensible behavior"?




/facepalm

Danny tackled this better than I could have.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Dannyalcatraz said:


> She didn't vilify all white males, nor even all white males in the hobby.



You mean, other than to emphasize the -whiteness- of the attackers and to state that most every other male in the hobby was a coward?  Then to emphasize the alleged "omnipresence" of the harassment?



> While you continue to attack the form of her assertions, do you have ANYTHING constructive to say about how to deal with the underlying problem on the merits?



Throw out the ignorant and unhelpful broad brush attacks.  Build alliances.  Don't teach, to use a metaphor brought up earlier, the people who are on fire to run away from the people who are ready and willing to help them (even when those who want to help are *gasp* men) out of fear that those people will just douse them with gasoline.


----------



## Rottle

Thanks mech, the advice helps.  I think it would have to be obviously case by case, if the harassment is over then asking the person if they would like me to get someone in authority not only offers to help but let's them know they have help at hand.  If it on going I wouldn't be entirely comfortable leaving the person in that situation to get help, I would want to stay just in case.  Maybe shouting for an authority type or offering to walk with the harassed to an authority figure helps.

Makes me feel this thread has value if I can learn one thing to help or at least really burn it in my mind to look out for those who might need a little support.


----------



## MechaPilot

Rottle said:


> Thanks mech, the advice helps.  I think it would have to be obviously case by case, if the harassment is over then asking the person if they would like me to get someone in authority not only offers to help but let's them know they have help at hand.  If it on going I wouldn't be entirely comfortable leaving the person in that situation to get help, I would want to stay just in case.  Maybe shouting for an authority type or offering to walk with the harassed to an authority figure helps.




I have to admit my ignorance of much of the minutia of cons (I have never been to one before) is inhibiting my ability to participate as fully and informedly as I would like.  I don't know if the "someone in authority" usually has an out-of-the-way office/lounge, or if you're able to flag someone over by waving to them.  Based on what others have said about the substantive lack of security, the poor overall training of security that is present, and other factors, I'm going to have to assume the former is more likely.  And, if that's the case you're definitely right that leaving the person in the harassment situation while you go to get help is not a good idea.  I like your idea of offering to walk the person to someone in authority.

My only caveat about walking the person to someone in authority is to pick a public route.  If I was being harassed and a person who was walking me to someone in authority appeared to be taking me on a route that might leave us alone together, I'd be a little suspicious (simply because of the rules all of us women are raised with); especially now that I know that there's probably not a substantial security camera presence.




Rottle said:


> Makes me feel this thread has value if I can learn one thing to help or at least really burn it in my mind to look out for those who might need a little support.




There have been quite a few good moments in these threads.  Unfortunately, they also get sidetracked by both legitimate tangents and by people apparently trying to derail the conversation.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Darkwing Duck said:


> Throughout this entire discussion, I've said that there is room for ALL victims.  You and others like you are the ones protesting discussing male victims.



You're conflating two different actions here, and I am not convinced you're doing it simply because you're confused.

It has been said, *repeatedly*, that this is a discussion about the harassment of women in gaming. The problem exists. We are trying to discuss what to do about it.  

It has also been said, *repeatedly*, that harassment of women in gaming _merits its own discussion_. Why? Because the problem is big enough and severe enough. That, and it's just wrong to let the harassment continue.

Now, because the topic merits discussion does not mean that the topic of sexual harassment of men in gaming, and different kinds of harassment of men in gaming in general, is verboten. It just means it's a distraction _in this thread_. 

You're not the first person to construe requests to stop with the distractions as calls to not discuss the issue of harassment of men in gaming. (But the fact that you're the most recent is probably why you're catching such heat.)

So please, if sexual harassment of men in gaming is really that big of a problem, and if you can point users of this forum to similar instances (like what I asked for from you HERE, and still have yet to receive), then by all means start a new thread on the topic. 



Darkwing Duck said:


> By simple math, since most people are heterosexual and men are the primary consumers of RPGs, there probably is more sexual abuse of women in RPGs.



Yep. And not just probably. And they're mostly white, too.

And just as a reminder: we're at the point in the thread where debating the actual level of harassment of women is behind us. 

Looking forward to your on topic comments about how the harassment of women in gaming can be curbed and stopped.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

TO THE MODS: 

Is there a way to create a pop-up window that appears whenever someone who has not posted yet in the thread decides to do so, that warns them that it's required to read the thread in its entirety first, so posts made that rehash prior issues or that attempt to re-open arguments that derail the discussion, won't be looked at kindly?


----------



## Eltab

Rottle said:


> neither her claims nor any by posters here matter as much as making the change in our collective behavior.  Not to me anyway.



As one of the people who has described incidents and resolutions, I find your statement mystifying.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> I don't know if the "someone in authority" usually has an out-of-the-way office/lounge, or if you're able to flag someone over by waving to them.




It depends on the size of the convention.  

A convention typically will not have a security staffer present in every single room at all times.  Some select spaces may have oversight.  There will usually be an Operations office, and possibly a Security office as well - not too far out of the way, as people from those offices need easy access to the rest of the convention.  So, generally, you can't just wave and have a security person show up.  Walking the person to the security or ops space is what's more likely to happen.  And, as noted, those offices are generally not far removed from the main populated spaces.  A public route will usually be easy.

And, of course, as I noted upthread - the most recent case of men misbehaving at a con I have been involved with was perpetrated by a member of the security staff.  The security staff is only as good as the process that chooses them and trains them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> You mean, other than to emphasize the -whiteness- of the attackers...




Because they

1) _are_ primarily white, and

2) she points out similar behavior leveled against POCs, a.k.a. minorities.



> and to state that most every other male in the hobby was a coward?




Because they allow visible public harassment to continue without comment.



> Then to emphasize the alleged "omnipresence" of the harassment?



How many female ENWorlders who have participated in this thread have claimed they have NOT had similar experiences?  I'm thinking the number is between 0 and 1.

Again, it may be exaggeration, but seemingly...unfortunately...not by much.


----------



## Rottle

Eltab said:


> As one of the people who has described incidents and resolutions, I find your statement mystifying.




I don't want to get distracted by arguements over whether a claim one poster makes is exactly true or even verifiable is all.  I simply can not know and prove with any degree of certainty that what another poster says is true.  I would simply like to focus instead on solutions and not get distracted by arguing if specific events happened.   I mean no offense to those who have posted events that support the belief this happens.  It simply seems we all agree this is a problem, so why let debate about poster x's claim be a distraction.   So I am suggesting we just move to how we help when it does happen.


----------



## billd91

Darkwing Duck said:


> and..?  Your point..?




The point is the Star-Ledger's data suggest that male criminal behavior in this regard is a bigger problem than female criminal behavior (by a factor of 3 to 1). If the courts (juries and judges) also perceive that, it'll lead to longer sentences. 



Darkwing Duck said:


> When a woman is unwilling to come forth to testify, it is because the judicial system is going to victimize them all over again, (the BS liberal metanarrative says).




You got data saying that's not true? That women aren't feeling victimized by the judicial system? That they aren't going to face resistance from the police, they aren't going to face a cross-examination from the defense that will blame them for their own attack?



Darkwing Duck said:


> When men are unwilling to come forth to testify, its their fault they don't get justice (the same metanarrative says)




In the very specific topic you brought up, statutory rape by an adult, analysis suggests boys are substantially less likely to feel they were victimized in the first place. For those who feel that way, they aren't interested in obtaining justice -  that's a far cry from being intimidated away from seeking it, something the boys who *do* feel victimized also have to struggle with.


----------



## Springheel

sanishiver said:


> It has been said, *repeatedly*, that this is a discussion about the harassment of women in gaming.
> 
> Now, because the topic merits discussion does not mean that the topic of sexual harassment of men in gaming, and different kinds of harassment of men in gaming in general, is verboten. It just means it's a distraction _in this thread_.




If that's the case, maybe someone should rename the thread from "Harasment in Gaming" to something that specifies only female harasment should be discussed.


----------



## cmad1977

Springheel said:


> If that's the case, maybe someone should rename the thread from "Harasment in Gaming" to something that specifies only female harasment should be discussed.




Or people who don't particularly care about women being harassed/threatened/abused in our community by members of our community could refrain from posting in the thread about a topic they don't care about.


----------



## Eltab

Rottle said:


> ... I would simply like to focus instead on solutions ...  So I am suggesting we just move to how we help when it does happen ...



The process is not as difficult as you (in the plural, not you personally) are making it out to be:
When you see something happening, STAND UP.

It's rather odd being the / a guy who offers solutions to IRL events, but keeps hearing from others "what can / should we do?"
Has it not occurred to folks that they can just imitate me?  Are folks conditioned to expect a certain process (meetings, activists holding protests, position papers, Official Announcements, whatever) and they won't move until that all is done?  Is there somebody who has to "go first" before folks will follow?


----------



## MechaPilot

Eltab said:


> The process is not as difficult as you (in the plural, not you personally) are making it out to be:
> When you see something happening, STAND UP.




If there was the awareness of the problem and the will to "STAND UP," wouldn't we be seeing more people recounting times when they stood up against harassment happening in their presence?  Or more people recounting a time when they were harassed and someone stood up for them?  Or even recounting times when they saw someone else stand up for another someone else who was being harassed?

I've said repeatedly in these threads that a lot of people say things like "I wouldn't tolerate that happening in front of me."  And that's great.  I think that's the page we should all be on.  However, in contrast to people like myself and @_*Elf Witch*_ posting our harassment experiences I can't really recall any accounts of incidents where someone stood up for someone else who was being harassed.  @_*tomBitonti*_ mentioned being involved in two incidents.  From the context of his post, I assume he meant in a manner where he intervened on the part of the harassed (though there was no details given as to how he intervened or how well it was received by the people being harassed or by other bystanders, and I won't push him to give those details if he doesn't want to).

It just seems to me that most people, particularly gamers who often have a history of being picked on, have much more of a "keep your head down," "don't make waves," "don't get involved" type of mentality than they do a "hey, that's not right, I have to do/say something" mentality.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Because they
> 
> 1) _are_ primarily white, and
> 
> 2) she points out similar behavior leveled against POCs, a.k.a. minorities.
> 
> Because they allow visible public harassment to continue without comment.
> 
> How many female ENWorlders who have participated in this thread have claimed they have NOT had similar experiences?  I'm thinking the number is between 0 and 1.
> 
> Again, it may be exaggeration, but seemingly...unfortunately...not by much.




I have to ask: Looking at the base demographic, young adult males, how does the gaming experience compare with the experience in schools.  That is, junior and senior high school and undergraduate college?  I'm not asking to say the experience isn't bad in either case.  I'm wondering if the gaming experience is worse than the school experience -- for the same demographic.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> It just seems to me that most people, particularly gamers who often have a history of being picked on, have much more of a "keep your head down," "don't make waves," "don't get involved" type of mentality than they do a "hey, that's not right, I have to do/say something" mentality.




And, to be honest, they may have witnessed it, and not really understood what they were looking at.  See my note about a women getting groped non-consensually, *in the middle of a crowd*, without anyone realizing it wasn't consensual, if they even actually saw it.  See the notes of women who have said they don't speak up about how they felt at the time of the event, and how men, who are not in the same position as the victim, may not realize what a comment means to the victim.

Standing up may require keeping a sort of alertness to things we are not used to keeping.


----------



## MechaPilot

tomBitonti said:


> I have to ask: Looking at the base demographic, young adult males, how does the gaming experience compare with the experience in schools.  That is, junior and senior high school and undergraduate college?  I'm not asking to say the experience isn't bad in either case.  I'm wondering if the gaming experience is worse than the school experience -- for the same demographic.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




I can't speak to the experiences of other women/girls in schools, but here are mine:

I have not been harassed, sexually or otherwise, at either the graduate or undergrad college level.

I was substantially harassed in a non-sexual manner from the late end of grade school through high school (grades 6-12).  Most of this harassment was about my weight, and about the fact that I was one of the poorer students at school.  The latter also created other harassment in the form of being ridiculed or looked down upon for not having designer clothes, and for being on the free school lunch program at one point.

There was also some harassment of a sexual nature.  At one point in middle school, after I had to start taking showers at school because of a mandatory swimming class (we all had to shower together, with separate showers and locker rooms for boys and girls, before changing back out of our swimsuits and into our school clothes), I was harassed for not developing as much as others my age.  Additionally, because I was shy (with all the harassment, I wonder how/why that happened) and didn't get asked out or otherwise go on any dates, there were periodic rumors about my sexuality; with people alternately claiming that I was either homosexual or frigid.

Edit: It's not school related, but I did get irritated with a coworker who runs a register and can't do basic math (and who is always asking me to do it for her).  I wasn't yelling at her, but I was very irritated at her, noticeably so.  After noticing my irritation, my manager told me, "calm your t***."  He and I often joke with each other, even telling jokes of an adult nature, but I have to admit I felt a little uncomfortable.


----------



## Sadras

MechaPilot said:


> It just seems to me that most people, particularly gamers who often have a history of being picked on, have much more of a "keep your head down," "don't make waves," "don't get involved" type of mentality than they do a "hey, that's not right, I have to do/say something" mentality.




That is a good point. 

What I have noticed, and I haven't noticed anyone actually mentioning this, except beating the same old "white male hobby" crap, is that at least a number of online posters on Enworld, including myself, have mentioned that they have gamed or still game with their mothers, wives, girlfriends, daughters or their friends' wags. That should mean as the hobby moves into the second and third generation more and more women are being included and one would imagine that these women would not be harrassed (certainly not in their playgroups). If these women are being harrased in their playgroups, then the issue in their instance is a lot more serious than strangers harassing strangers.


----------



## Springheel

> I can't really recall any accounts of incidents where someone stood up for someone else who was being harassed




I posted an article that included several examples.



> Or people who don't particularly care about women being  harassed/threatened/abused in our community by members of our community  could refrain from posting in the thread about a topic they don't care  about.
> 
> ​




Where are the people who "don't particularly care"?  I think there was one such post in the last 65 pages.


----------



## MechaPilot

Springheel said:


> I posted an article that included several examples.




I missed that earlier, and I almost missed your reminder of that link as well.  When you took my forum name out of the quote, I didn't get notified that I had been quoted, and with some of the horrible posts that have popped up in both of the harassment threads I've only been giving some of the posts a cursory skimming.

I am glad to see some examples of the gaming community policing itself effectively, so thank you for the link.  I will say that I do disagree a little bit with the article you linked to in that I don't think having anti-harassment policies and promoting awareness of the problem is a bad thing.

I also do think that more needs to be done, especially in the arena of having enough camera coverage to catch evidence of gropings and other sexual assault and battery actions that are notoriously difficult to successfully take to the authorities without video evidence.  The groping issue is unlikely to seriously affect me, because no one is ever going to see me and think "She's so hot, I wanna get a handful of that."  However, cosplayers and other gamers could certainly use the backup if they ever need to file a sexual assault/battery complaint.


----------



## Catulle

Springheel said:


> I posted an article that included several examples.




You posted an article penned by the guy that harassed my (now) wife online and in person a few years back in a pretty awful way, trying to drive her out of a LARP. Since that point, he seems to have written "In defence of rape" (as a cool narrative trope) and snuggled up to GamerGate...

Is this meant to be in some way credible to me?


----------



## MechaPilot

Catulle said:


> You posted an article penned by the guy that harassed my (now) wife online a few years back in a pretty awful way. Since that point, he seems to have written "In defence of rape" (as a cool narrative trope) and snuggled up to GamerGate...
> 
> Is this meant to be in some way credible to me?




Seriously?  Well. . . dang.  There goes another piece of my faith in the gaming community.


----------



## Eltab

MechaPilot said:


> If there was the awareness of the problem and the will to "STAND UP," wouldn't we be seeing more people recounting times when they stood up against harassment happening in their presence?  Or more people recounting a time when they were harassed and someone stood up for them?  Or even recounting times when they saw someone else stand up for another someone else who was being harassed?



I don't think you are wrong, and I'm not arguing against you.  
I wonder if going through K-12 Lutheran school (as opposed to Public school) hasn't provided me with a world-view that allows me to see an act, identify it as a problem, and react accordingly; rather than think "well it must be ok for them" or "they aren't complaining about it" or "it's not my problem".

Start here: WWPD - What Would (a classic Lawful Good) Paladin Do?
Go ye therefore and do likewise.

P.S. in order to anticipate the outraged posts I'm sure are coming,
modified slightly from a "So-and-so is the greatest star ever" Brag Book: BRJN's ego is so big that when he walks in the rain, only the top of his head gets wet.


----------



## Springheel

MechaPilot said:


> I will say that I do disagree a little bit with the article you linked to in that I don't think having anti-harassment policies and promoting awareness of the problem is a bad thing.




I can see his point, but I would tend to agree more with you on that issue.  Anti-harassment policies (that define what is and isn't acceptable at that venue) are good ideas at any conventions where you have thousands of strangers crammed into tight spaces.


----------



## Hussar

Something to remember too is that the overwhelming majority of play isn't happening at con's, so, it's probably statistically likely that a lot of the harassment isn't happening at con's either.  With things like Encounters and Pathfinder Society, you have an awful lot of gaming going on with strangers on a pretty regular basis.

I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but, back around 15 years ago (the last time I saw any numbers) the RPGA had about 150k members.  At a guess, I'd hope Encounters+Pathfinder Society is the same size.  Again, I don't know, so, I'm going entirely with my gut.

But, in any case, there's a boatload of strangers playing together in public spaces on a regular basis.

So, the issue of harassment has to be handled at the "grassroots" level as well.  FLGS's need to make it abundantly clear that harassment is a thing and it's not tolerated.  Clearly post harassment policies in visible places, heck use the Encounters policy and just blow it up to poster size, in the gaming store.  The store managers should also probably take a few minutes at the beginning of each Season, to sit down with the DM's for a few minutes (it's not like this takes hours to make clear) that harassment is being taken very seriously and the DM's should be both alert for it and conscious of it when running games.  

Organised play, IMO, is a good place to disseminate information and educate people that this sort of thing is totally unacceptable.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> I can see his point, but I would tend to agree more with you on that issue.  Anti-harassment policies (that define what is and isn't acceptable at that venue) are good ideas at any conventions where you have thousands of strangers crammed into tight spaces.





But, again, this is a big point, the overwhelming majority of play isn't done at conventions.  And conventions with "thousands of strangers" are comparatively pretty rare.  There are far, far more conventions with hundreds of strangers where they simply do not have the resources for dedicated security, policing, video surveillance and whatnot.  You wouldn't expect that at a wedding party would you?  That's a similar sized gathering.  

Anti-harassment policies, like the one you find on Page 9 of the Adventurers League Player's Guide are necessary at all venues not just Gen Con sized ones.

And, on a side note.  We've heard numerous stories of female gamers having the DM have an NPC rape the PC during a prisoner situation.  How many male gamers have ever had this same scenario occur?  Has anyone reading this, if you're male, EVER had your PC raped?  Whether the PC is male or female? Killed?  Sure.  Tortured?  Maybe.  Raped?  I'm pretty sure that it almost never happens.  How many stories have you heard where the male DM roleplays a rape with another male player?

All these arguments about "male players matter too" really do miss the point.


----------



## MechaPilot

Hussar said:


> How many stories have you heard where the male DM roleplays a rape with another male player?




Just one, earlier in this thread.  I think it was @_*Sadras*_ who mentioned male-on-male rape happening to one of his characters because the DM thought it was funny.

Edit: I will say that I don't recall if @_*Sadras*_ said the DM just said that it happened to his character or if the DM tried to make him RP it (as happened in my case).

Edit#2:  It was actually [MENTION=31754]Lord Twig[/MENTION], you can find it here.


----------



## Hussar

MechaPilot said:


> Just one, earlier in this thread.  I think it was @_*Sadras*_ who mentioned male-on-male rape happening to one of his characters because the DM thought it was funny.
> 
> Edit: I will say that I don't recall if @_*Sadras*_ said the DM just said that it happened to his character or if the DM tried to make him RP it (as happened in my case).
> 
> Edit#2:  It was actually [MENTION=31754]Lord Twig[/MENTION], you can find it here.




Heh.  i think my point still stands.


----------



## MechaPilot

Hussar said:


> Heh.  i think my point still stands.




I wasn't attempting to rebut your point.  Rather, I was simply answering your question.  I have no reason to doubt [MENTION=31754]Lord Twig[/MENTION] that it happened, and I have no reason to doubt that it does happen to other male players.  However, that doesn't mean that I think it happens to male players with anything anywhere close to the frequency with which it happens with female players.  And, it doesn't mean that I think the male players it happens to are pushed to roleplay the PC rape the way my harasser did with me (though I won't rule out that it might happen to some of the male players who see their characters raped).


----------



## Sadras

MechaPilot said:


> Just one, earlier in this thread.  I think it was @_*Sadras*_ who mentioned male-on-male rape happening to one of his characters because the DM thought it was funny.
> 
> Edit: I will say that I don't recall if @_*Sadras*_ said the DM just said that it happened to his character or if the DM tried to make him RP it (as happened in my case).
> 
> Edit#2:  It was actually @_*Lord Twig*_, you can find it here.




NEVER at out our table. All the players and myself as DM actually have a respect for everyone's characters, and this respect has become more enforced since we started writing character proses. As far as I can recall in the last 10-15 years we have not even had an instance of NPC rape.


----------



## MechaPilot

Sadras said:


> NEVER at out our table. All the players and myself as DM actually have a respect for everyone's characters, and this respect has become more enforced since we started writing character proses. As far as I can recall in the last 10-15 years we have not even had an instance of NPC rape.




Yeah, sorry about that.  I was recalling the wrong conversation chain when I mentioned you in my post.  Also, I applaud your having respect for your players and their attachment to their characters.


----------



## Springheel

> And, on a side note. We've heard numerous stories of female gamers having the DM have an NPC rape the PC during a prisoner situation. How many male gamers have ever had this same scenario occur? Has anyone reading this, if you're male, EVER had your PC raped? Whether the PC is male or female? Killed? Sure. Tortured? Maybe. Raped? I'm pretty sure that it almost never happens. How many stories have you heard where the male DM roleplays a rape with another male player?





I have never seen this happen.  I'm in favour of adults doing whatever they enjoy in their games, but actually roleplaying rape or sex scenes would not be to my taste, and should never be done without the approval of everyone involved.


----------



## tomBitonti

MechaPilot said:


> I've said repeatedly in these threads that a lot of people say things like "I wouldn't tolerate that happening in front of me."  And that's great.  I think that's the page we should all be on.  However, in contrast to people like myself and @_*Elf Witch*_ posting our harassment experiences I can't really recall any accounts of incidents where someone stood up for someone else who was being harassed.  @_*tomBitonti*_ mentioned being involved in two incidents.  From the context of his post, I assume he meant in a manner where he intervened on the part of the harassed (though there was no details given as to how he intervened or how well it was received by the people being harassed or by other bystanders, and I won't push him to give those details if he doesn't want to).




In the first case, the social group (folks, some friends, some acquaintances ) who had traveled together to the big cosplay convention in Atlanta (DragonCon, if I remember correctly).  We were hanging out together in a public place, and a few of us were drinking.  One of the guys was being rude to one of the ladies. Definitely offending the lady. We as a group intervened to keep the guy away from the lady, and the lady was very glad that we helped.  In this case, I don't think she would have wanted us to call security, but if that's what she wanted, we would have obliged.

The other case was not gender based.  I attempted to intervene, but found the person in authority to be un-supportive.

I've intervened in regards to folks were being harassed on a guild public void server, brought it to the leader's attention, and the behavior was moved against.

A problem that I have with the current discussion is distinguishing cases of harassment which are of a general sort, and which should be acted against, and a focus on harassment in gaming.  I find that the main features of harassment in gaming which is deserving attention is the particular demographics (lots of guys, only a few women, some of whom are young and perhaps more vulnerable) means that some additional attention is warranted.  But generally, I find *a policy of actively working against harassment of any sort* works in a gaming context just the same in other contexts.  What I do (or would do; I haven't been to a Con or in a public game for some years) is wholly tuned to the particular features of the gaming environment, but largely follows from the general active policy.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> I think it may be important to inject a bit on language here.  Specifically about "responsibility" and "guilt".  This will be relevant for any number of cases where one is part of, or heir to, a group that committed some wrongs.  In colloquial use, we don't often differentiate between these terms, but discussion becomes *tons* easier if we do.
> 
> If a person is "responsible" for something, that actually means that they are expected to do something about it, to take some action.
> 
> If a person is "accountable" for something, then when we go looking for why it went wrong, we are going to look to them.  If you are looking to punish, or assign guilt, you're actually looking for the person who is accountable for it - "the buck stops here" tells you where the accountable person is.
> 
> So, in a completely non-criminal example:  If you have a software project, the engineers are responsible for writing code - it is their assigned task.  If the overall project fails, however, it is the project owner who is held accountable for it.
> 
> Those of us who do not commit harassment are not accountable for it - we are not guilty.  We may be responsible for providing part of the solution, simply because we are in a position to do so, in a way the victim is not.



Dude, those words are synonyms.  They're interchangable in most places.  Now, I'll stipulate that here are a bunch of management structures that break them into separate categories, but those are artificial.  I guarantee you that if I'm responsible for doing something and I don't do it, I don't get to skate by saying 'yes, but I'm not accountable.'



Balesir said:


> This whole post was laced with whining about "it's not my fault", but this particular bit (focussed on the bit I have bolded) might throw some light on why that is all unfounded.



It's really not, as I don't accept that I have anything to be at fault for to begin with.  I get that you want to make those the same thing, because that way encourages the narrative that I do have something to be guilty of and I'm just refusing to accept my culpability.  I reject the entire framework.



> Start by reading it in a slightly more widely stated way:
> 
> - The human race is a group with a terrorism problem (or, more accurately, several)
> 
> - the Kingdom Animalia is a group with (many) a terrorism problem
> 
> Neither of these claims, while merely wider versions of what is being objected to, has anything to do with racism, sexism or other "politically charged" prejudices.
> 
> Now move to some more specific cases:
> 
> - Every nation on Earth is a group with a terrorism problem
> 
> - The Islamic faith is a group with a terrorism problem
> 
> - White male gamers are a group with a terrorism problem
> 
> These groups all have a terrorism problem, in the specific sense that some of their number are trying to keep "outsiders" off of "their" turf by terrorising them into going away. That certainly does not mean that all members of the group are guilty of perpetrating terrorism - in fact it is in all cases a very small minority that do. But if the members of all such groups grew a smidgeon of humility and accepted some shared guilt for the culture, the environment and the lack of clear contrary influence that has resulted in such monsters within their ranks, the problems might actually start getting fixed instead of grinding on without end.



The main problem with this structure, aside from it also explicitly stating that group member bear group culpability, exactly as I said was intended, is the it now requires that all humans and animals also bear culpability.  This means that you're at fault, and so it the persons terrorized, as their part of the group that you say just have some shared guilt.  It's on of the core failures of the group guilt issues.  I'm not into blaming victims.



> Sadly, however, what invariably comes to the fore is the very opposite of humility; it is a prideful rejection of what is perceived as an attack on the group's social position. The implication is that a measure of harrassment, exploitation and even outright abuse (by a minority and with plausible deniability) is an acceptable price to pay for the continued social position of the group. And are the group members guilty of supporting that implied assumption? Yes, actually, they are as long as they fail to act against it. If you are a member of a group, and that group is doing wrong, you have a duty to act to stop that wrong by whatever means are available to you.



No.  I do not have a duty.  I should feel the need, and I do.  I have taken action already, and will stand up again in the future.  There is a problem, and it needs more light and people willing to stand up.  I agree that there should be anti-harassment policies, but care should be taken to make them general enough to be broadly useful, and not written to fit the immediately clamor.  

What I also reject is that, as a white male, I bear any responsibility, accountability, guilt, or fault for the actions of other individuals, be they also white and male or otherwise.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, while persons commit individual acts, it is not uncommon for groups of people to commit wrongs.  See "mobs", "invaders", "gangs" etc.
> 
> Recognition of group culpability is hard coded in law in many western legal systems.  See "felony murder" and similar laws.
> 
> And again, when a group _knowingly & intentionally_ allows miscreants within it to misbehave, they are morally, ethically, and- occasionally- legally culpable for allowing that behavior to occur.  Gotta drain the swamp to get rid of the 'skeeters.



No, no they are not.  They have no duty or responsibility for the bad actions of others.  The easy flaw here is to do what Grandine did above -- move the definition of the group.  Right now, it's white males that have a terrorism problem, but move the goalposts a bit to just white people having a terrorism problem, and now you're saying that women are culpable to.  Group guilt is entirely malleable by the ease with which one defines the group.  Take your Nawlins example.  That's a real issue of people not reporting crime and allowing it to fester.  But is it everyone in the neighborhoods?  What if only some didn't report it and others did.  Your blanket now says that the ones doing what their supposed to still have the same level of group guilt as the ones that do nothing or even that commit the crimes, only because they happened to be defined into the group.  It's a bad argument.

Rather, it should be acknowledged that harassment and assault are individual crimes that can be stopped by others taking note and taking action.  Instead of insisting people have guilt that they need to expunge, offer empowerment through clear reporting lines at your events and clear adjudication processes.  A harassment policy should leave absolutely no doubt as to who to report an incident to, what's expected of a report (if anything), and who will have the action and what process they will follow.  A few words that say 'harassment will not be tolerated' is pretty useless.  Unfortunately, that's the extent to which most anti-harassment policies go, and some of the ones hailed here are about that bad.  They're more about assuaging that guilt you insist everyone has and not actually effective at dealing with the problem.

And that's really my main point here -- if you're so focused on making sure that people accept and acknowledge their group guilt, then that is what will drive your efforts -- ways to reduce that guilt.  And those efforts may work to make you feel better (the calls for people disagreeing with what some posters believe this thread should be about to be silenced is a great example) but don't address the problem anymore.  You're adding in a middleman - guilt - that actively works to undermine your goals.

But, I know why it's done.  It's nice to feel the rage at people that don't accept their flawed.  It's great signalling to claim how much you accept your guilt, to make great shows of how you're acting against your own guilty group and advocating for the downtrodden.  Thing is, the downtrodden don't give a rat's bum about your guilt -- they don't want to be harassed anymore.  So, instead of guilt, make that your goal, and leave off insisting that every white male needs to have some moral and ethical culpability because there are real jerkwads out there that happen to be white and male.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some of the behavior described in the original article- threats of assault, rape or killing- in order to modify the writer's behavior can actually sustain a conviction for making "terroristc threats", punishable by up to 20 years in prison, depending on jurisdiction and seriousness of the threat.
> 
> http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/terrorist-threats.htm
> 
> So, no, her writing isn't an issue at all.  It isn't even really hyperbole.



Uh, no.  Just no, man.  If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat.  If you harass someone, you're guilty of that.  But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual.  There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.



sanishiver said:


> It's not a cheap shot at all.
> 
> On the contrary, it's dead on accurate.
> 
> And before you trot out the tired false comparison about men being victims too, make sure you can provide examples of male gamers, or men involved in the gaming industry, that receive rape threats and death threats on the same scale that women do, to the point that they fear for their personal safety and that of their families, and worry over their job security.
> 
> That's part of the real life problem being discussed here.
> 
> ******
> 
> Morrus mentioned earlier that he's not sure about how to keep the discussion focused. I'd say one way to do it is for EN World to write it into the Code of Conduct that the website recognizes that harassment exists in gaming, it is largely targeted at women, and such is to the great detriment of the gaming community.
> 
> Because of this, discussions on harassment will be moderated tightly. The value of generating useful discussion on how to deal with the problem will be emphasized. Complaints about the sources of information are not allowed.
> 
> Or something to that effect.



I don't suppose the irony of your statements above is remotely apparent to you?  If not, well, you demanded clear and unambiguous sources at a specific level of occurrence and impact, and then you advocated for a clear policy of being moderated if you complain about sources of information.  I get that you meant 'sources of information I don't think should be questioned,' which does change the tone here from ironic to totalitarian, but still, funny stuff.


----------



## tomBitonti

Ovinomancer said:


> Dude, those words are synonyms.  They're interchangable in most places.  Now, I'll stipulate that here are a bunch of management structures that break them into separate categories, but those are artificial.  I guarantee you that if I'm responsible for doing something and I don't do it, I don't get to skate by saying 'yes, but I'm not accountable.'




In a military command structure, the words have different meanings, and an officer will very probably correct you immediately if you attempt to interchange them.  This is my actual experience in discussion with an Army Lt. Colonel.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer

tomBitonti said:


> In a military command structure, the words have different meanings, and an officer will very probably correct you immediately if you attempt to interchange them.  This is my actual experience in discussion with an Army Lt. Colonel.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB



I'm a veteran, myself.  I hardly think that the way the military uses language is a good model for a general discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> Uh, no.  Just no, man.  If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat.  If you harass someone, you're guilty of that.  But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual.  There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.




I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this.  I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups.  Here are 2 exemplars:

Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf

Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)


> Sec. 22.07.  TERRORISTIC THREAT.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
> (1)  cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
> (2)  place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;



http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought.  So I stand by my assertion.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this.  I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups.  Here are 2 exemplars:
> 
> Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf
> 
> Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)
> 
> http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm
> 
> Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought.  So I stand by my assertion.




Hard to discuss that without branching into politics.  Do we need to address the definition of "Terroristic", which is a politically laden conversation, or can we keep to the issue of Harassment, with a focus on Harassment in Gaming?  It seems sufficient to distinguish more serious felony type behavior from less serious harassment.  For felony behavior, the recourse is to call the police.  I don't think there is much more to say.  But simple harassment is a more nuanced issue, and more actionable at the level of what folks might or should do.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this.  I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups.  Here are 2 exemplars:
> 
> Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf
> 
> Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)
> 
> http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm
> 
> Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought.  So I stand by my assertion.




The Virginia statue is specific to the act of burning crosses, and contends that doing so is automatically considered as intent to threaten.  Didn't see anything on terroristic threats and nothing on 20 year terms.  

The Texas law you reference is a misdemeanor to threaten an individual as you quoted, putting it on par with most true threat laws.  The felony parts of that section all deal with groups and/or the government as the targets.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Dude, those words are synonyms.  They're interchangable in most places.




As one has noted, they are not the same in the modern military.  Nor are they so in modern business, in which communications plans are frequently based on a "RACI chart", which denotes who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed on project status.

The real point is that _there are, in fact, two concepts - the people who are guilty, and the people who are tasked with making things better_, and these are very often not the same people.  The business world and the military have gotten on board with there being two concepts.  I suggest we join them, because they have great value here.




> Uh, no.  Just no, man.  If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat.  If you harass someone, you're guilty of that.  But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual.  There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.




I think you are incorrect there.

"A terroristic threat is a threat to commit a crime of violence or a threat to cause bodily injury to another person and terrorization as the result of the proscribed conduct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

So, say a female game developer is being harrassed, and gets doxxed, and someone threatens to go to her house and do violence to her.  If that person were to follow through on that act, even though it is performed on a single individual, would result in fear and intimidation among many other female game developers, and other women by extension.  That act, even though carried out on an individual, has broader implications, and thus counts as terrorism.

Terrorism is not defined by the number of people you do violence to, but the number of people you intimidate.


----------



## Lord Twig

Since my experience with having a character raped was brought up, I would like to point out that it was very different than what the women in this thread have described. Not that it wasn't graphic, it was. I was also told that I could continue to role-play my character as he would survive and seek revenge, but I wasn't interested.

The difference is that I did not feel humiliated or intimidated in any way. I was mad, but that's it. I told the GM to **** off and I quit the game. Then I argued with the rest of the group and got them to agree that it wasn't the tone of the game that we wanted to play and the GM relented. He never apologized and still thought it was funny, but it wasn't considered that big a deal and it was soon forgotten. Honestly it took me a while of thinking to remember the incident as it happened over 20 years ago.

In retrospect it is probably because I am part of the majority group. I don't feel intimidated by my fellow gamers, even though I am usually one of the smallest people in the room, unless women are present. (Surprising fact! Men are generally larger than women!)

As for the "men can be victims too", they most certainly can be, and it should be acknowledged. But really that's all that is required in this case. We can talk about the problem that female gamers have, and how we can fix those problems. Then a "This applies to victims of any gender also" at the end, I think, doesn't detract anything from the overall message.

Finally I would like to say that a public announcement of anti-harassment policies and raising awareness of the issue is a good idea. I can tell you that there were a couple times (not game related) where I was present when inappropriate comments were made to women and I was so stunned that I didn't do anything (not immediately at least). I was shocked. I looked to the insulted person to get their reaction to try to gauge how I should react. They didn't do anything, so I didn't do anything. This was the wrong thing to do.

Later I brought up the issue (both times), but I think the lack of immediate condemnation hampered the response. By then it was "water under the bridge" or "I'll talk to him about it" and then it is forgotten. So a reminder of what to watch out for and what to do when it happens I think can be a big help.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> As one has noted, they are not the same in the modern military.  Nor are they so in modern business, in which communications plans are frequently based on a "RACI chart", which denotes who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed on project status.



I believe I acknowledged that there are business plans that utilize a difference.  They also use a lot of other buzzwords, and tend to mangle the concepts.  Outside of those contrived structures (and they are contrived), you can substitute responsible for accountable and the meaning remains the same.  I am responsible for my actions.  I am accountable for my actions.  Same meaning. 

I am neither responsible for nor accountable for harassment in gaming, either through personal action or through membership in a group.  This entire definition discussion is bizarre.



> The real point is that _there are, in fact, two concepts - the people who are guilty, and the people who are tasked with making things better_, and these are very often not the same people.  The business world and the military have gotten on board with there being two concepts.  I suggest we join them, because they have great value here.



That's not any definition of the words accountable and responsible I can recognize, even using the military or RACI concepts.  "Guilty" and "makes things better" has never been on any RACI duties explanations I've ever seen.  And, yes, I even belong to an organization that uses RACI, which is one reason I know that the R and the A there have very little to do with your definitions or ideas.  They mean 'guy who tells others what to do' and 'gal who does it and is downhill of the A'.

And I find there to be excruciatingly little benefit in using any terminology that you simplified into 'guilty' and 'working to make things better'.  


> I think you are incorrect there.
> 
> "A terroristic threat is a threat to commit a crime of violence or a threat to cause bodily injury to another person and terrorization as the result of the proscribed conduct."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat
> 
> So, say a female game developer is being harrassed, and gets doxxed, and someone threatens to go to her house and do violence to her.  If that person were to follow through on that act, even though it is performed on a single individual, would result in fear and intimidation among many other female game developers, and other women by extension.  That act, even though carried out on an individual, has broader implications, and thus counts as terrorism.
> 
> Terrorism is not defined by the number of people you do violence to, but the number of people you intimidate.



Never once said it was violence.  Confused as to your point, now.

But, under that concept, _any _crime is a terrorist act because it can cause a wider population to fear.  Rob a bank? Terrorism, people will now be concerned or fear that they will have their banks robbed or be in a bank when it's robbed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm actually on my way somewhere, but I wanted to quickly address this.  I haven't had the time to track down case Lawton see if there are any individual prosecutions, but I know that several of the "terroristic threats" statutes are broadly drafted to include threats against individuals, property, and groups.  Here are 2 exemplars:
> 
> Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person ... , with the intent of intimidating any person or group - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html#sthash.eIcy9fuJ.dpuf
> 
> Texas Penal Code, Title 5 Section 22.07 (a) (1) & (2)
> 
> http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm
> 
> Whether or not there have been any convictions or not, in certain jurisdictions, the statutes have been drafted in such a form as to allow such charges to be brought.  So I stand by my assertion.




Did a quick search, and quickly found an anonymous inquiry to a fellow Texas attorney from a man trying to get his conviction of a "terroristic threat" against the daughter of a Houston police officer expunged.  So yes, convictions for "terroristic threats" against individuals DO occur.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> The Virginia statue is specific to the act of burning crosses, and contends that doing so is automatically considered as intent to threaten.  Didn't see anything on terroristic threats and nothing on 20 year terms.



That's a fair counter- and notably, while Virigina does have some harsh penalties for threats of violence, near as I can tell, they never use the word "terroristic" as part of their drafting.

I will note, however, that every legal reference site I have looked on has noted that "every state" has laws against making "terroristic" threats.  I suspect that, even without using the exact phrase, Virginia's law is known as such by state practitioners, and is probably distinguished by its penalties and definitions, possibly its legislative history.



> The Texas law you reference is a misdemeanor to threaten an individual as you quoted, putting it on par with most true threat laws.  The felony parts of that section all deal with groups and/or the government as the targets.




Nobody said the threat had to be "felonious", just defined as a "terroristic threat".  It will still show up on your record as such, even though it is only a misdemeanor.  The anonymous expungement inquiry I mentioned above noted that the conviction was interfering with the person's ability to get a job.  IOW, it may only be a misdemeanor, but not all misdemeanors are crated equal.

And besides, there's also Federal law to consider.



> 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
> 
> (a) Prohibited Acts.—
> (1)Offenses.—Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
> (A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
> (B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
> in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
> (2)Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.—
> Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).
> 
> (b) Jurisdictional Bases.—
> (1)Circumstances.—The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—
> (A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
> _(Edit)_
> (E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or
> (F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.




So, if the threat was issued by someone out of the USA, or within its territorial seas, or special jurisdictions, you can be charged under the Federal terroristic threat law.

It is unclear by it's language whether simply using the Internet to issue a threat will in and of itself support an indictment under 18 U.S. Code § 2332b(b)(1)(A) if the conduct charged originated within the United States, but I suspect it is probable.  After all, the Interstate Commerce Act has been used to support actions that were solely within the confines of a single state because the activity involved some apparatus of interstate commerce such as the Internet, or broadcast media outlets that cross state boundaries.

Under _United States v. DeAndino,_ 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992), email is clearly considered to be an instrument of "interstate and foreign" commerce, so the risk is there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

tomBitonti said:


> Hard to discuss that without branching into politics.  Do we need to address the definition of "Terroristic", which is a politically laden conversation, or can we keep to the issue of Harassment, with a focus on Harassment in Gaming?  It seems sufficient to distinguish more serious felony type behavior from less serious harassment.  For felony behavior, the recourse is to call the police.  I don't think there is much more to say.  But simple harassment is a more nuanced issue, and more actionable at the level of what folks might or should do.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB



Well, state "terroristic threat" statutes vary GREATLY.  Even though many cover even threats against individuals, as some correctly pointed out, there are others that demand the threatened target be a group of more than ten, for instance.  The question, of course, is if each threat of violence against a female gamer, game journalist or game designer is legally a discrete instance, or if a pattern of such threats would support an indictment because the target is "all" female gamers, game journalist and game designers.

And IMHO- as well as others who have posted in this thread- the threats of rape, assault and death DO rise to the level of terrorism as designated by the writer in the title of the blog post that was the catalyst for this thread.

It is also a rhetorical sticking point for pushback.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, state "terroristic threat" statutes vary GREATLY.  Even though many cover even threats against individuals, as some correctly pointed out, there are others that demand the threatened target be a group of more than ten, for instance.  The question, of course, is if each threat of violence against a female gamer, game journalist or game designer is legally a discrete instance, or if a pattern of such threats would support an indictment because the target is "all" female gamers, game journalist and game designers.
> 
> And IMHO- as well as others who have posted in this thread- the threats of rape, assault and death DO rise to the level of terrorism as designated by the writer in the title of the blog post that was the catalyst for this thread.
> 
> It is also a rhetorical sticking point for pushback.




I'll grant you the last point, but really, use of "terrorism" seems a bit of fear mongering.  I don't see how it is useful, either in the original,linked article, or here in discussion.  We can get by with simply remarking that threats of violence, or actual violence, or actions intended to cause duress (shouting, lewd remarks, &etc) are sufficient to bring in trained security personnel, e.g., police or guards.  I don't think that most untrained people should handle such circumstances, except to immediately mediate if possible.  In case of an already committed act, I'd try to help, but really I don't think I'd be the right person to provide council to an assault victim.

But I'm not convinced that felony behavior is a greater concern in gaming activities.  Consider the example from the linked article -- being slipped a drug and being raped.  The circumstance was more akin to an underage woman going to an off campus mixer.  That seems a very dangerous environment.  And if the up thread discussion is a guide, it was a friend that committed the assault.  I don't see the very terrible outcome being gaming specific.

Where there seems more to discuss is the more nuanced issue of "soft" harassment: An in game rape scene.  Unwanted attention.  General verbal harassment.  These are matters which are more within the purview of a typical gamer, and coachable behavior.

Thx！
Tom B


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Actually, I agree that the terroristic behavior alleged isn't a "greater concern" for our hobby, but I disagree that we don't need to talk about it.  I had ZERO idea that fellow gamers threatened women in such a relentless way until GamerGate.  And as I stated, I have faced very little overt racism in the hobby.  I had this image of this hobby as a bit of an oasis.

IOW, I saw my fellow gamers with rose colored glasses


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, I saw my fellow gamers with rose colored glasses




Yup, pretty much this. I still generally do.


----------



## Hussar

tomBitonti said:


> I'll grant you the last point, but really, use of "terrorism" seems a bit of fear mongering.  I don't see how it is useful, either in the original,linked article, or here in discussion.  We can get by with simply remarking that threats of violence, or actual violence, or actions intended to cause duress (shouting, lewd remarks, &etc) are sufficient to bring in trained security personnel, e.g., police or guards.  I don't think that most untrained people should handle such circumstances, except to immediately mediate if possible.  In case of an already committed act, I'd try to help, but really I don't think I'd be the right person to provide council to an assault victim.
> 
> But I'm not convinced that felony behavior is a greater concern in gaming activities.  Consider the example from the linked article -- being slipped a drug and being raped.  The circumstance was more akin to an underage woman going to an off campus mixer.  That seems a very dangerous environment.  And if the up thread discussion is a guide, it was a friend that committed the assault.  I don't see the very terrible outcome being gaming specific.
> 
> Where there seems more to discuss is the more nuanced issue of "soft" harassment: An in game rape scene.  Unwanted attention.  General verbal harassment.  These are matters which are more within the purview of a typical gamer, and coachable behavior.
> 
> Thx！
> Tom B




Well, I guess it kind of boils down to why the harassment is occurring.  I believe that most of it is done through ignorance, rather than straight up malicious intent.  Someone telling dead baby jokes or commenting on someone's appearance.  That sort of thing.  The people aren't really deliberately trying to force others out of the game or the hobby, they're just ... well... stupid I guess is the best word here.  Socially oblivious?

The problem, and where the notion of terrorism is coming from, is that so much of it is directed at women.  From a woman's perspective, does it really matter if that guy (who, from demographics is almost always white) is just stupid or malicious?  All that really matters is that guy is making someone uncomfortable to the point where they feel unwelcome.  And it has to start feeling pretty pointed after a while.

I will freely admit that I've never faced the degree of harassment that people are talking about here, but, I did live in South Korea for about five years.  I'm a 6'2" big white dude.  Living in a country where immigration just isn't a thing.  It's about as homogenous as you can possibly get.  So, I lived with daily cat calls of people shouting "Hello!  HELLO!" at me every single time I walked out the door.  Yeah, it sounds stupid to complain about it, but, after years of unrelenting harassment like this (people would scream this at my back after I'd passed, from across the street, as I was driving by and they were walking - and not children, adults were doing this.  Constantly, every single day, usually multiple times per day) I had to leave the country.  

I started out really enjoying my time in Korea, but, by the time I left, I absolutely loathed the country.  Went back for a quick trip years later and fifteen minutes after I got off the train in Pusan, someone screamed "hello" at me as I walked by.  I'll never go back.

Never minding events like getting on a bus or train and every single conversation stops as the entire bus or train turns to stare at you until you get off.  Constant total amazement that I could speak such a difficult language as Korean.  Complete bafflement as to why I didn't hate the Japanese.  So on and so forth.

So, I do have some idea what constant, relentless, never ending harassment feels like.  It shocks me that more women don't go postal considering the crap they are putting up with.

Rolling this back around to the hobby, it's not like we've covered ourselves with glory.  Game rules that are obviously sexist, art that is pretty targeted at men, and behaviour that is just brutal.  I'm reminded of the Big Bang Theory episode where the girls go to a gaming store:

[video]https://youtu.be/I2Gghi6FObY[/video]

Now, it's played as a joke, and sure, it makes gamers look pretty bad.  But, how inaccurate is it really?  And, Stuart, the store owner, reacts exactly the way he should - he steps in and tells the guys in the store to back off and cool it.  I wonder how many women in the hobby have faced something similar and a whole lot less funny.


----------



## LordEntrails

So, it's a problem. What do we do?

- Ask store owners to post & enforce no harassment policies? Don't shop at stores that don't comply?
- Ask cons to post & enforce no harassment policies? Ask for video monitoring of all public spaces? Refuse to attend if they don't?
- Create & wear no harassment t-shirts?
- What about publishers?
- Online stores?
- Make a no harassment statement at the start of any public game that you GM? Ask your GM to do the same?
- "Man up" and intercede the next time someone steps out of line?


----------



## MechaPilot

LordEntrails said:


> So, it's a problem. What do we do?
> 
> - Ask store owners to post & enforce no harassment policies? Don't shop at stores that don't comply?
> - Ask cons to post & enforce no harassment policies? Ask for video monitoring of all public spaces? Refuse to attend if they don't?
> - Create & wear no harassment t-shirts?
> - What about publishers?
> - Online stores?
> - Make a no harassment statement at the start of any public game that you GM? Ask your GM to do the same?
> - "Man up" and intercede the next time someone steps out of line?




I think a fair number of those are good ideas.

Stores and cons should have clearly posted and enforced anti-harassment policies, and cons could certainly benefit from greater video coverage to prevent gropings and other assaults/batteries from being he-said she-said affairs.

Informing players that you won't tolerate harassment at your table when you GM also sounds great.

Standing up for people who are being harassed also sounds good.  I've previously mentioned that if a fellow player (male or female) thought I was being harassed and asked if I would like them to get someone in authority (or take me to someone in authority), I'd be cool with that.  If I was able to handle it on my own, I could politely decline before cussing out my harasser(s).  If I didn't feel I was able to handle it, or if I in fact felt threatened, then being taken to someone in authority would be nice.  Also, I mentioned being willing to be a witness to what you witnessed, and telling the police or the people in authority at the con what you saw when a harassed gamer files a complaint.

I don't think t-shirts are necessary.  But, if people want to wear them, I can't say it would turn me off.

I think publishers can help by making sure that the female characters in the game art are treated with the same level of dignity as the male characters.  Also, if those publishers have organized play groups, then having and enforcing anti-harassment policies for those organizations is a good idea.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And IMHO- as well as others who have posted in this thread- the threats of rape, assault and death DO rise to the level of terrorism as designated by the writer in the title of the blog post that was the catalyst for this thread.



Threats such as those were illegal long before 'terroristic' became a buzzword.  But we aren't entirely talking about just death threats, battery threats (technically, a threat is already assault, so...), or rape threats, are we?  And the incidence of those is far, far lower than the incidence of harassment.  The scope there shows that the word is being too broadly applied.



> It is also a rhetorical sticking point for pushback.



If I understand your point, then the pushback should be against any kind of stereotyping or harassment.  I'm pretty vehement about not tolerating harassment of anyone.  I'm also very willing to admit that women are far more likely to suffer harassment than other groups (in gaming, and often in other venues), and that the reason for that is largely systemic and embedded in the group dynamics of the culture (in gaming, and in other venues).  HOWEVER, that recognition and acceptance in no way means that I need to turn a blind eye to stereotyping others in pursuit of the goal of reducing harassment.  It does mean that the level of acknowledgement is much less -- I won't be taking any concrete actions to stop people from using such stereotypes outside of saying that their unnecessary and counterproductive.  I have and do take far more concrete steps to reduce harassment of women.

And that's my real problem -- the extremism that's gripped the political discussions in the US and the world has bled over into other problems.  If I do not walk in ideological lockstep with the vocal group, I am part of the problem.  I reject that, and I also reject many of the tenets of the current vocal group's ideology.  I think that a culture of group shame and guilt is a bad culture, and counterproductive.  It's also unnecessary to accept such an ideology to achieve gains in reducing harassment.

Now, I'll fully agree that some people will say something like this and then go further into outright denial of problems that don't meet a ludicrous level of evidence.  They're posting in this thread.  I'm not that guy.  There's a problem, it need attention, and there's lots of way to improve.  I don't doubt that harassment is ongoing in gaming culture, that it largely targets women, and that it's almost entirely perpetrated by men, many of whom are white.  Those are facts.  They do not, however, support a stereotype that gaming has a White Male Terrorism problem.  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I agree that the terroristic behavior alleged isn't a "greater concern" for our hobby, but I disagree that we don't need to talk about it.  I had ZERO idea that fellow gamers threatened women in such a relentless way until GamerGate.  And as I stated, I have faced very little overt racism in the hobby.  I had this image of this hobby as a bit of an oasis.
> 
> IOW, I saw my fellow gamers with rose colored glasses



I suppose I've never had this problem.  Maybe because I wasn't a social outcast, and I wasn't bullied by none gamers.  In fact, the most bullying I've ever personally suffered has been at the hands of gamers (not that I particularly cared, but they tried).  To me, people are people no matter where you are.  And people have a tremendous capacity to suck.  And be fantastic.  So I don't wear rose colored glasses about groups of people being more noble or better behaved that other groups.  At best, I expect them to be people.

Now, some groups do have a higher likelihood of sucking.  And gamers, having often been subjected to bullying and being on the short end of the social power stick, are one of them.  But that's a people thing, too.  If you beat up a person and then give them power, like social power in a group, then they will tend to lash out at the persons or group that abused them.  And gamers, most male and mostly white, have often been on the short end of the man/woman social power stick for, like, always.  So, it makes sense that it would happen, from that perspective.  However, making sense and being acceptable are two very different things.  



Hussar said:


> Well, I guess it kind of boils down to why the harassment is occurring.  I believe that most of it is done through ignorance, rather than straight up malicious intent.  Someone telling dead baby jokes or commenting on someone's appearance.  That sort of thing.  The people aren't really deliberately trying to force others out of the game or the hobby, they're just ... well... stupid I guess is the best word here.  Socially oblivious?
> 
> The problem, and where the notion of terrorism is coming from, is that so much of it is directed at women.  From a woman's perspective, does it really matter if that guy (who, from demographics is almost always white) is just stupid or malicious?  All that really matters is that guy is making someone uncomfortable to the point where they feel unwelcome.  And it has to start feeling pretty pointed after a while.



Probably not to the immediate perspective of the woman being harassed, no.  

However, comma.  It should matter when discussing how to correct the behavior.  If someone is malicious, no manner of talking will correct the behavior.  If someone is stupid, they can be educated.  In order to successfully educate, though, you need to be able to talk to the person.  If your discussion is all 'you have a white male terrorism problem' then some of the stupid people will not listen because you've started by insulting them.  It's counterproductive, even if it's cathartic.  Also, I think there are some that enjoy the social power dynamic of taking up the defense of harassed women and then using that to be able to be mean and insulting to others that aren't on their team.  It's just another example of the 'abused people that get power often abuse that power' effect.  Taking the high road, and not engaging in charged language but in rational discourse will reach many of the stupid people much better than haranguing them.  The malicious you just have to kick out/get arrested.  No solving them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

LordEntrails said:


> So, it's a problem. What do we do?
> 
> - Ask store owners to post & enforce no harassment policies? Don't shop at stores that don't comply?
> - Ask cons to post & enforce no harassment policies? Ask for video monitoring of all public spaces? Refuse to attend if they don't?
> - Create & wear no harassment t-shirts?
> - What about publishers?
> - Online stores?
> - Make a no harassment statement at the start of any public game that you GM? Ask your GM to do the same?
> - "Man up" and intercede the next time someone steps out of line?




Harassment policies are pretty much absolutely required. The problem with many policies, though, is that they're incomplete.

Most policies do a good job of clearly stating what behavior is unacceptable.  Many even do a pretty good job of stating the punishments for breaching the policy.  But almost all of them do a crappy job of going between those points.  For a policy to be effective and useful, it must, in addition to stating prohibited behavior and punishments, clearly state to whom and how to report bad behavior.  Who can you/should you report abuse to?  Where/how can you find them (in a big con, this is very important, in a store, less)?  What do I need to do to report abuse?  Is there a form, will I need to answer questions?  Will I need to give my name?  Etc.  All of these things need to be addressed and clearly posted.

Many of your other questions are much more personal in nature.  It's up to you if you want to wear a shirt.  I like the idea of con management/contacts for a harassment policy to be identifiable via such a thing -- advertisement of the policy and functional at the same time.  It's up to you if you participate in a store that doesn't post a policy.  It's up to you if you want to have a personal policy at your table -- just make sure it doesn't run afoul of any store or con policies.  

It's up to you if you want to intercede or report a specific incident.  I'd strongly encourage you do to so, even if it's just at the level of 'that's not cool!'  Often, just challenging a behavior with such a statement can immediately stop the behavior (and sometimes not).  We each must judge our involvement ourselves.  I stand up, call out the behavior, and will report it if it has crossed the line from accidental to intentional or is severe enough, or if the situation isn't resolved immediately.  Sometime it can be handled at the table, sometimes it must be escalated.  As with all human interaction, there's no set of rules for which is which.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

At various points upthread, people have asked if this level of harassment (especially the online threats) is just a gaming thing or if it is something common to any area in which men have dominated, and the "boy's club" is just now starting to see more women getting admission.  The answer I've given has been that it is the latter.  Here's an exemplar featuring "mean tweets" to female sports reporters.

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/hope-boyfriend-beats-men-read-162507278.html

Clearly, the guys are having almost as hard a time reading it aloud to them as the targets no doubt did when first they read them.  So there IS hope.

It reminds me of John 3:20, "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."  The anonymity of the Internet lets miscreants hide away.  So one potential weapon in the arsenal against such behavior is exposure.  If you find out who is spreading Internet poison, let others know.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At various points upthread, people have asked if this level of harassment (especially the online threats) is just a gaming thing or if it is something common to any area in which men have dominated, and the "boy's club" is just now starting to see more women getting admission.  The answer I've given has been that it is the latter.  Here's an exemplar featuring "mean tweets" to female sports reporters.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/hope-boyfriend-beats-men-read-162507278.html
> 
> Clearly, the guys are having almost as hard a time reading it aloud to them as the targets no doubt did when first they read them.  So there IS hope.
> 
> It reminds me of John 3:20, "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."  The anonymity of the Internet lets miscreants hide away.  So one potential weapon in the arsenal against such behavior is exposure.  If you find out who is spreading Internet poison, let others know.




For what purpose are you letting others know?  Serious question, as doxxing (doxxing: providing real world information about a poster, like addresses and real names) is a big point of contention on both sides of the internet harassment fence.  Usually, the point of doxxing is to allow others to heap scorn upon the bad actor, but isn't that just more bad acting?  Is harassment of harassers the proper response?  I don't profess to know the answers, here.  I have an immediate negative reaction to calls for exposure because that seems like a call for retribution, for abuse to be applied to the abusers.  I don't think that's the right answer.  However, anonymity is one of the legs of the internet @@@hole formula, and, if there were less anonymity, there'd be less @@@holes, presumably.  

But, let's say that you can identify someone, and they don't get a mountain of harassment aimed at them (best case).  What's the point?  That wouldn't prevent or even much dissuade the behavior; they can continue to say what they said before, if less anonymously.  So, really, it's the implied understanding that, by exposing a jerk on the internet, you would be inviting people to publicly chastise and shame the jerk.  Essentially, the intent is to call down a shame mob on the person and make it hellish for them to punish them and to make sure they don't do it anymore.  I think that I have a moral problem with that.  I've said it before, means matter, and if a behavior (harassment, in this case) is wrong in one direction it's wrong in the opposite direction.

But, that leaves the behavior pretty much unchecked.  There isn't a good answer, it seems, but I'm pretty sure that doxxing isn't even an okay answer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I don't believe that harassing harassers is appropriate as a general principle.  Exceptions exist, like counterdemonstrations.

However, if you know who the harassers are, you can change your behavior in non-harassing ways.  For instance, were I to find out Internet Troll X who was sending rape threats to a female gamer of my acquaintance happened to be the car mechanic down the street, I could opt not to give him my business, same as I'd do if I found out if he were a member of the KKK.

If Internet Troll X were a guy I socialize with regularly, perhaps I'd reevaluate our friendship.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't believe that harassing harassers is appropriate as a general principle.  Exceptions exist, like counterdemonstrations.
> 
> However, if you know who the harassers are, you can change your behavior in non-harassing ways.  For instance, were I to find out Internet Troll X who was sending rape threats to a female gamer of my acquaintance happened to be the car mechanic down the street, I could opt not to give him my business, same as I'd do if I found out if he were a member of the KKK.
> 
> If Internet Troll X were a guy I socialize with regularly, perhaps I'd reevaluate our friendship.




Justifying a measure by the most appealing results is a poor test.  If you want to vet a rule, place it in the hands of the people you think most likely to abuse it and then use that data point for evaluation.  For instance, if you think that outing the real life identity of an internet troll to your friends is a good idea, do you also think that an internet troll being about to out your identity to his friends is a good idea?

Also, if I found out that a friend of my was sending rape threats to anyone, much less someone else I know, re-evaluating the friendship would be the _least _of that fallout.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Ovinomancer said:


> Justifying a measure by the most appealing results is a poor test.  If you want to vet a rule, place it in the hands of the people you think most likely to abuse it and then use that data point for evaluation.  For instance, if you think that outing the real life identity of an internet troll to your friends is a good idea, do you also think that an internet troll being about to out your identity to his friends is a good idea?
> 
> Also, if I found out that a friend of my was sending rape threats to anyone, much less someone else I know, re-evaluating the friendship would be the _least _of that fallout.




DOxing (I think that is the right word) is a major issue. There are reasons not to want anyone to talk about our real names here or anyhere...


----------



## LordEntrails

Ovinomancer said:


> Harassment policies are pretty much absolutely required. The problem with many policies, though, is that they're incomplete.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Many of your other questions are much more personal in nature.  It's up to you if you want to wear a shirt.  I like the idea of con management/contacts for a harassment policy to be identifiable via such a thing -- advertisement of the policy and functional at the same time.  It's up to you if you participate in a store that doesn't post a policy.  It's up to you if you want to have a personal policy at your table -- just make sure it doesn't run afoul of any store or con policies.
> 
> It's up to you if you want to intercede or report a specific incident.  I'd strongly encourage you do to so, even if it's just at the level of 'that's not cool!'  Often, just challenging a behavior with such a statement can immediately stop the behavior (and sometimes not).  We each must judge our involvement ourselves.  I stand up, call out the behavior, and will report it if it has crossed the line from accidental to intentional or is severe enough, or if the situation isn't resolved immediately.  Sometime it can be handled at the table, sometimes it must be escalated.  As with all human interaction, there's no set of rules for which is which.




I think parts of my post that I did not write and assumed would be understood weren't.  My oversight.

Of course I can do these things. I wasn't asking what an individual could do. I was trying to ask what we, the gaming community (or at least a set of "us") are actually willing to do? 

I think most of us would intercede if we saw such an event occurring. If it happened at a con or your local game store and the management didn't take action (and what action?), would you walk out and never return? Of course we have to try to take effective action(s). But what actions are "we" willing to take?


----------



## Ovinomancer

LordEntrails said:


> I think parts of my post that I did not write and assumed would be understood weren't.  My oversight.
> 
> Of course I can do these things. I wasn't asking what an individual could do. I was trying to ask what we, the gaming community (or at least a set of "us") are actually willing to do?
> 
> I think most of us would intercede if we saw such an event occurring. If it happened at a con or your local game store and the management didn't take action (and what action?), would you walk out and never return? Of course we have to try to take effective action(s). But what actions are "we" willing to take?




Are you asking each person to answer, or are you talking generally?  I couched my response in terms of what I expect from the generic you.


----------



## LordEntrails

Ovinomancer said:


> Are you asking each person to answer, or are you talking generally?  I couched my response in terms of what I expect from the generic you.




There I go again, not being very clear 

I actually don't know what I expect. I hope each person asks and answers these questions to themselves.

But, after 67 pages of discussion, what, if anything concrete is going to come from the time and consideration people have spent on this issue. Is it simply going to be a thread were people discuss their views, feel good about themselves for the stances they take on this forum? Or, is a movement going to be started that generates some "charter" and takes some actions?

For me personally, I plan to create a few sentences that I include in game descriptions when I put together an online game open to the public (FG Daze, FG Con, etc). I'm willing to walk out of a store or con and never come back if management refuses to appropriately handle a situation. But, none of that is a stretch for me, as I don't often go to stores or cons. I'm willing to help develop and support such a "charter". I'm willing to do other things if presented with a reasonably effective plan.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> Justifying a measure by the most appealing results is a poor test.  If you want to vet a rule, place it in the hands of the people you think most likely to abuse it and then use that data point for evaluation.  For instance, if you think that outing the real life identity of an internet troll to your friends is a good idea, do you also think that an internet troll being about to out your identity to his friends is a good idea?
> 
> Also, if I found out that a friend of my was sending rape threats to anyone, much less someone else I know, re-evaluating the friendship would be the _least _of that fallout.




There are boards in which my identity is fully known.  Now, I'd rather trolls not know who I am and other stuff, but I guarantee you that if I were fully revealed in retaliation for revealing a troll, the troll would have a harder time of it.  My secrets are small things, and would not up harm me and mine so much as being exposed to making crimially actionable threats on the Internet.

At any rate, I was also unable to access ENWorld for some time today, starting while I was editing the post you're responding to.  I meant to continue:

Another alternative to harassment, shunning, voting with dollars/feet is constructive engagement.  I've seen some powerful examples of it working in real life- one reason why I don't use message board ignore lists.  The one I took to heart was that of a Rabbi who was getting phoned threats of violence from a neo-Nazi.  Instead of hanging up, or yelling or any of the normal, expended reactions, the Rabbi always asked the caller why he was doing what he was doing, in a calm, clear "fatherly" voice.

After many months of this, the harassment stopped, and caller asked to meet the Rabbi.  They met several times, and eventually, the Rabbi convinced him to give up his hatred.  The man started getting his "88", swastika and other tattoos removed.

More time passed, and the former white supremacist married a Hispanic woman.  The story ended when the man got a terminal diagnosis, and he & his wife spent his final days living with the Rabbi's family.

That is the power of constructive engagement.  We can't all be as strong as that Rabbi, but his story gives us a an example to aim for, and an idea of what we can achieve if we try.


----------



## doseyclwn

What I as a man need to realize is that if I had grown up and been subject to the kind of harassment that women are unfortunately subject to in Nerd culture, I might be more sensitive to it than your Avg. White Guy. So while something may not be offensive to me, I don't get to decide if it's offensive for someone else. And I've never ever felt stifled by that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are boards in which my identity is fully known.  Now, I'd rather trolls not know who I am and other stuff, but I guarantee you that if I were fully revealed in retaliation for revealing a troll, the troll would have a harder time of it.  My secrets are small things, and would not up harm me and mine so much as being exposed to making crimially actionable threats on the Internet.
> 
> At any rate, I was also unable to access ENWorld for some time today, starting while I was editing the post you're responding to.  I meant to continue:
> 
> Another alternative to harassment, shunning, voting with dollars/feet is constructive engagement.  I've seen some powerful examples of it working in real life- one reason why I don't use message board ignore lists.  The one I took to heart was that of a Rabbi who was getting phoned threats of violence from a neo-Nazi.  Instead of hanging up, or yelling or any of the normal, expended reactions, the Rabbi always asked the caller why he was doing what he was doing, in a calm, clear "fatherly" voice.
> 
> After many months of this, the harassment stopped, and caller asked to meet the Rabbi.  They met several times, and eventually, the Rabbi convinced him to give up his hatred.  The man started getting his "88", swastika and other tattoos removed.
> 
> More time passed, and the former white supremacist married a Hispanic woman.  The story ended when the man got a terminal diagnosis, and he & his wife spent his final days living with the Rabbi's family.
> 
> That is the power of constructive engagement.  We can't all be as strong as that Rabbi, but his story gives us a an example to aim for, and an idea of what we can achieve if we try.




While I appreciate your anecdote, it really doesn't have much at all to do with the idea of doxxing people, does it?  Now, don't get me wrong, the kind of engagement in your story is fantastic, but it's a bit optimistic to expect that people being harassed will maintain enough detachment to do that (the rabbi in your story is inspiring).  It is also an example of that tactic working -- it doesn't often.  People that hate faced with reason and kindness will often just go look for another target and not stop to listen.  So, while your tale is truly inspiring, it's also a best case example of a truly self-possessed victim and a perpetrator willing to listen.  It's not a good model for general cases. 

And doxxing is still a bad idea.


----------



## Ovinomancer

doseyclwn said:


> What I as a man need to realize is that if I had grown up and been subject to the kind of harassment that women are unfortunately subject to in Nerd culture, I might be more sensitive to it than your Avg. White Guy. So while something may not be offensive to me, I don't get to decide if it's offensive for someone else. And I've never ever felt stifled by that.




Ah, the kafkatrap, again. First you describe a situation that most right thinking people would find horrible -- a life of harassment.  Then you introduce the identity politics -- it's white men that can't recognize the problem.  Then you establish that you should either accept that you should be in the blame group because you don't get it, or that you explicitly condone the harassment.  Thing is, I don't have to accept your framework to do good against harassment.

The core of your statement is the one truth, but it's a trivial one.  Without the identity politics baggage, you're just essentially saying that empathy is good -- trying to understand the situation from a victim's point of view is a good thing to do.  And, to that, I have no issue.  It's trivially obvious that empathy is a good thing.  But the cloak of identity politics draped over this -- women, white men, accept guilt for your group -- distorts the essential goodness of the empathy.  It turns it into a signalling device to position yourself as a defender of the downtrodden with you having done nothing except publicly state that you're okay with your group guilt -- that you accept the condemnation.  All that does is give you the illusion of a moral high ground to lecture others on their guilty natures, which they come to by accident of genetics.  Essentially, your statement is nothing more than a statement of political tribalism.  It does nothing to advance or correct the problem -- it just makes you feel better and superior to others because you've accepted your place in the framework, which, regardless of the guilt assigned to your group, is defined as superior to anyone that hasn't accepted the guilt.


----------



## Ovinomancer

LordEntrails said:


> There I go again, not being very clear
> 
> I actually don't know what I expect. I hope each person asks and answers these questions to themselves.
> 
> But, after 67 pages of discussion, what, if anything concrete is going to come from the time and consideration people have spent on this issue. Is it simply going to be a thread were people discuss their views, feel good about themselves for the stances they take on this forum? Or, is a movement going to be started that generates some "charter" and takes some actions?
> 
> For me personally, I plan to create a few sentences that I include in game descriptions when I put together an online game open to the public (FG Daze, FG Con, etc). I'm willing to walk out of a store or con and never come back if management refuses to appropriately handle a situation. But, none of that is a stretch for me, as I don't often go to stores or cons. I'm willing to help develop and support such a "charter". I'm willing to do other things if presented with a reasonably effective plan.




This isn't a problem that will be solved by an ENWorld discussion.  The realistic aims of such a discussion as this is awareness of the scope of the problem, and that's being achieved.  Even Danny, who's already predisposed to help, has stated that he wasn't even aware of the scope of this problem.  That means that he wouldn't be looking for a problem and would likely have overlooked minor events because he wasn't paying attention.  He's paying attention, now, and won't overlook the small things that create the culture that more readily accepts the grosser behaviors.  That's progress, and he's not the only one in just this thread that's said that they're not more aware.  

I think people are calibrated to expect that any problem should be solved in a short time.  That's not reality, and it's certainly not reality when dealing with cultural issues.  The best and most through changes in culture are the ones that occur from within, not the ones forced on from without.  And, while this is a problem that is heinous in nature, it's still a cultural one, so awareness is the best weapon to fight it.  In the meantime, do whatever you feel is right for you to continue to raise awareness and don't tolerate harassment in your games or in your venues.


----------



## Umbran

I am taking bits out of order here, because a relevant point got raised late in the post I'm responding to, but it shold be addressed earliy in the response.



Ovinomancer said:


> For what purpose are you letting others know?




This one is actually pretty easy.

Doxxing to enable harassment is a problem.  However, if you release the address and name of a person *who has committed harassment* or made threats, you are now enabling proper legal action (see below).  As you've already noted, online harassment is enabled by anonymity.  Breaking that anonymity, while not sufficient, is a *required* step in addressing the issue.



> But, let's say that you can identify someone, and they don't get a mountain of harassment aimed at them (best case).  What's the point?  That wouldn't prevent or even much dissuade the behavior; they can continue to say what they said before, if less anonymously.




Um, no.  Harassment is generally *illegal*.  It is not protected speech.  For example, in my state of Massachusetts:

*MA General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 265:*
_Section 43A. (a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. _

So, what you get out of it is enabling legal action.



> I have an immediate negative reaction to calls for exposure because that seems like a call for retribution, for abuse to be applied to the abusers.




Yeah, there's this thing we call, "punishment".  Perhaps you've heard of it.  The Rabbi mentioned above notwithstanding, our psychological sciences have not progressed to the point where we can regularly and reliably correct bad behavior through purely positive means.  We occasionally (actually, regularly) need to use some forces on bad actors that are not pleasant.  Until you can state a workable alternative, your rejection of it does not constitute constructive criticism.

Can we agree that there is inadequate recourse available through legal channels at this point?  Given a justice system that is overburdened, police forces that are not trained or equipped to deal with internet issues, and those forces being largely male and unfortunately often dismissive of rape, much less harassment against women, I mean? 

So, in the face of inadequate legal recourse for an illegal act... you expect folks to just sit there and take it?  Are you trying to tell us that people don't have a right to self defense when the cops aren't willing or able to intervene?


----------



## Rottle

Umbran said:


> So, in the face of inadequate legal recourse for an illegal act... you expect folks to just sit there and take it?  Are you trying to tell us that people don't have a right to self defense when the cops aren't willing or able to intervene?




I am worried this road you want to take.  I want to protect those who need it as much as anyone.  But this line you are crossing it leads to a dark place where individuals get to meet out justice, individuals with no accountability.   

All I can say is be careful not to become that which you are fighting against.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, the kafkatrap, again.




Just upthread, you complained about someone using a buzzword ("terroristic"), did you not?  But you bust out the Raymondism* "kafkatrap"?  I'm not sure that's even-handed, sir.

Moreover, I think the use here is unwarranted, and, again, itself counts as a logical fallacy - thus:

Raymond's original "kafkatrap" is inspired by the works of Kafka - specifically, "The Trial" in which someone is (1) accused of *unspecified* crimes, and (2) in which any protests of innocence are taken as evidence of guilt.   

But, in our case, the crime is pretty well defined (harassment).  So, (1) does not apply.

*doseyclwn* above makes no accusations of guilt at all.  He simply notes that he might personally be a bit blind to the impact of certain speech, not having been subjected to it very much, so maybe he should not pass judgement on what is offensive.  He is not assigning guilt to anyone - in fact, quite the opposite, he seems to be saying he can't really pass judgement.  So, (2) does not apply.

I think this puts your kafkatrap accusation as being from out in left field, and far more buzzwordy than referring to threats that scare people enough to have to leave their homes as "terroristic".  

Earlier, I gave a different pushback, but it also wasn't kafkatrap.  I didn't say, "if you object to the language, you are guilty".  I said, in effect, that language use was a *separate issue*, and that through repeated (I might even say continuous) diversion into the language issue, one will derail a meaningful discussion, and effectively dismiss real harm done on people.  As if, after being harmed, we don't already expect people to be angry, and to speak angrily?  And that we shouldn't make allowances for that and look past it to see if we can deal with the thing that made them angry?










*The term "kafkatrap" was first coined by Eric S. Raymond, in a political essay in 2010.  In that essay, he starts off acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect, but in his workaday discourse (to which I have unfortunately been exposed) he abjectly fails to treat people with respect.  He was, once upon a time, very bright about software, but while he talks about politics a lot, he has no real experience in human governance.  So, I find his socio-political chops are somewhat wanting.  Not that this makes the term false or useless, but it means we cannot accept it on the basis of the strength of its origin, and we must examine it, and its use, on its own merits.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> While I appreciate your anecdote, it really doesn't have much at all to do with the idea of doxxing people, does it?  Now, don't get me wrong, the kind of engagement in your story is fantastic, but it's a bit optimistic to expect that people being harassed will maintain enough detachment to do that (the rabbi in your story is inspiring).  It is also an example of that tactic working -- it doesn't often.  People that hate faced with reason and kindness will often just go look for another target and not stop to listen.  So, while your tale is truly inspiring, it's also a best case example of a truly self-possessed victim and a perpetrator willing to listen.  It's not a good model for general cases.



I fully agree that constructive engagement isn't a panacea.  It only works when the victim or ally can maintain an even keel and the harasser has some sense of empathy/ functioning moral compass.  Finding the proper leverage also helps.  I was thinking of it mostly in the context of the friend who is the Internet troll whose friendship I'd have to reevaluate- remember, when I posted the example, I couldn't edit due to lack of access.

In that case, you have the leverage of your friendship.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> I am taking bits out of order here, because a relevant point got raised late in the post I'm responding to, but it shold be addressed earliy in the response.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is actually pretty easy.
> 
> Doxxing to enable harassment is a problem.  However, if you release the address and name of a person *who has committed harassment* or made threats, you are now enabling proper legal action (see below).  As you've already noted, online harassment is enabled by anonymity.  Breaking that anonymity, while not sufficient, is a *required* step in addressing the issue.



No.  Absolutely not.  Doxxing is releasing that information to the public, not to the authorities.  If you're talking about calling the police and giving information you have, that's one thing, but it's not doxxing.  Also, the act of doxxing can often be an invasion of privacy as well.  You're way off base here.

TO BE absolutely clear:  I would expect that you would notify the authorities if you have information regarding a crime, whether that crime is shoplifting, robbery, murder, or harassment.  This is good.  However, it is not good to just release the names of people you suspect are guilty of a crime to the general public for the purposes of enabling the public to address the perp.  That's not kosher.




> Um, no.  Harassment is generally *illegal*.  It is not protected speech.  For example, in my state of Massachusetts:
> 
> *MA General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 265:*
> _Section 43A. (a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. _
> 
> So, what you get out of it is enabling legal action.



Legal harassment is not always the same as the common usage of the word harassment.  For instance, if I call you a series of bad names here, that's not harassment.  If I continue to do so over time, following you to other venues, that may be harassment.  But if I just do it here, which is a publicly accessible place, then it's likely not harassment.  But that pattern of non-illegal name calling is what's described as harassment, and it's the large part of the type of behavior we're discussing here.  It's behavior that isn't illegal, but it's highly unwelcome, and is the kind of behavior that we wish to end.  As horrible as it is, saying that you want to rape someone isn't illegal harassment.  If you mail people rape threats, it is.  If it crosses the threshold of a true threat (which mailing people rape threats can easily do, but anonymous posting on the internet has a very high bar), then that's also illegal.  (TO BE CLEAR:  any rape threat is horrible and shouldn't be tolerated, I'm just addressing the narrow deference between horrible but legal speech and illegal harassment).

You're playing bait and switch with words, again.  For instance, describing a rape scene involving your new female player's character in graphic detail is clearly sexual harassment.  It is not, however, illegal.


> Yeah, there's this thing we call, "punishment".  Perhaps you've heard of it.  The Rabbi mentioned above notwithstanding, our psychological sciences have not progressed to the point where we can regularly and reliably correct bad behavior through purely positive means.  We occasionally (actually, regularly) need to use some forces on bad actors that are not pleasant.  Until you can state a workable alternative, your rejection of it does not constitute constructive criticism.
> 
> Can we agree that there is inadequate recourse available through legal channels at this point?  Given a justice system that is overburdened, police forces that are not trained or equipped to deal with internet issues, and those forces being largely male and unfortunately often dismissive of rape, much less harassment against women, I mean?



So, then, lynch mobs for those you deem worthy of them?  

So, in the face of inadequate legal recourse for an illegal act... you expect folks to just sit there and take it?  Are you trying to tell us that people don't have a right to self defense when the cops aren't willing or able to intervene?[/QUOTE]
What on Earth gave you the idea that you should sit and take it?  I've been clear and adamant that harassment must be confronted.  However, I've also said that means matter, and turning the tables so that your presumed harassers can be harassed by others because you doxxed them is not morally good.  It's catharitc, perhaps, and if your only criteria for using doxxing is that it satisfies your primal need for vengeance, then I suppose that's an excellent example of how you're really not interested in solving the issue, you're just interested in getting an emotional payout, whoever it hurts.

And you will hurt people.  The number of people that have been incorrectly doxxed and abused for things they didn't do continues to grow.  Yes, a lot of bad actors have also been doxxed, and you might get some vicarious joy out of watching the pile-on, but I adhere to the founding principle of our justice system - better a guilty man get away with it than an innocent man suffer.  We aren't perfect on this, by any stretch, but it's still a founding principle.  And doxxing completely ignores that principle to whip up the lynch mob of public opinion.  I cannot morally support that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Just upthread, you complained about someone using a buzzword ("terroristic"), did you not?  But you bust out the Raymondism* "kafkatrap"?  I'm not sure that's even-handed, sir.



I explained what I meant by the word I used.  You can claim it's a buzzword to use, I find it useful to express a concept that doesn't have it's own word, yet.


> Moreover, I think the use here is unwarranted, and, again, itself counts as a logical fallacy - thus:
> 
> Raymond's original "kafkatrap" is inspired by the works of Kafka - specifically, "The Trial" in which someone is (1) accused of *unspecified* crimes, and (2) in which any protests of innocence are taken as evidence of guilt.
> 
> But, in our case, the crime is pretty well defined (harassment).  So, (1) does not apply.



Then you fail to understand the usage, both of the kafkatrap and of logical fallacy.  A mistaken usage isn't a fallacy automatically, it's can just be a mistake.  But this is not a mistaken usage.  The crime is unspecified because there is no specific crime proposed.  Instead, I am to be guilty because of my membership to a group that presumably commits some crime -- in this case harassment.  This is my guilt because of my privilege of being a white male.  Any statement to the contrary just reinforces my guilt of having privilege.  

Also, the legal definition of harassment doesn't meet the usage in this thread.  That's not a logical fallacy, either, it's just a mistake.


> *doseyclwn* above makes no accusations of guilt at all.  He simply notes that he might personally be a bit blind to the impact of certain speech, not having been subjected to it very much, so maybe he should not pass judgement on what is offensive.  He is not assigning guilt to anyone - in fact, quite the opposite, he seems to be saying he can't really pass judgement.  So, (2) does not apply.



Yes, he does.  It's subtle.  He asserts that people are harassed, and that white men cannot see the harassment because of their position.  He then states that if some woman decides to be angry and categorize white men as offenders that we should just accept that categorization because we can't tell either way.  Implicit in the argument is that white men should accept the terms, like 'terrorist', used to describe us.  The point of the post was to encourage white men to accept that guilt and keep quiet because we deserve it, presumably because of our privilege.  It was rank signalling.



> I think this puts your kafkatrap accusation as being from out in left field, and far more buzzwordy than referring to threats that scare people enough to have to leave their homes as "terroristic".



I'm sure you do, as you based your entire argument on semantics and a failed grasp of the argument made.




> Earlier, I gave a different pushback, but it also wasn't kafkatrap.  I didn't say, "if you object to the language, you are guilty".  I said, in effect, that language use was a *separate issue*, and that through repeated (I might even say continuous) diversion into the language issue, one will derail a meaningful discussion, and effectively dismiss real harm done on people.  As if, after being harmed, we don't already expect people to be angry, and to speak angrily?  And that we shouldn't make allowances for that and look past it to see if we can deal with the thing that made them angry?




Yes, you should accept and ignore the language because addressing it perpetrates the heinous behavior that we should feel guilty for.  Every argument is 'you shouldn't comment on the intemperate language because, by doing so, you're harming people by distracting from the real issues.'  The unspoken part of that is that by not saying anything, you're accepting it and accepting that it's deserved.  For if it were not deserved, then there would be no problem in saying so.

I reject that I cannot speak as to the words used.  I reject that by speaking I cannot contribute to the problem.  In fact, let's analyze this:  of the posts of yours in this thread, how many are about actually addressing the issues of harassment of women and how many are about ensuring ideological purity of thought and speech?  I've at least put forward ideas on how to better craft anti-harassment policies and discussed the issue at large.  You've spent a lot of words telling me how wrong it is of me to question the wording used and/or question people who're making blanket statements about those words.  Perhaps you should grow some thicker skin, ignore the distractions, and actually address the issue?  That is, if you really care more about the actual issue that ensuring that everyone in the thread conforms to the approved thoughts.








> *The term "kafkatrap" was first coined by Eric S. Raymond, in a political essay in 2010.  In that essay, he starts off acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect, but in his workaday discourse (to which I have unfortunately been exposed) he abjectly fails to treat people with respect.  He was, once upon a time, very bright about software, but while he talks about politics a lot, he has no real experience in human governance.  So, I find his socio-political chops are somewhat wanting.  Not that this makes the term false or useless, but it means we cannot accept it on the basis of the strength of its origin, and we must examine it, and its use, on its own merits.



Goodness me.  Given I never once refered to the origin of the term and made all of my arguments in the thread, I'm not sure what this bit is for other than to signal that I should be ignored because i used a word from a person you don't like.  I never once referenced this, and I don't need to -- I make my own arguments, even if I take some things, like a good term or a form of argument, from somewhere else.  If you feel that you've successfully shut down this argument by impeaching a source not even quoted, there's a logical fallacy for that.

Also, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate you:  you've finally found an example of a tone argument.  Unfortunately, you're the one that's made it in dismissing Raymond's essay because you don't think he's nice to people.  Still, it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I fully agree that constructive engagement isn't a panacea.  It only works when the victim or ally can maintain an even keel and the harasser has some sense of empathy/ functioning moral compass.  Finding the proper leverage also helps.  I was thinking of it mostly in the context of the friend who is the Internet troll whose friendship I'd have to reevaluate- remember, when I posted the example, I couldn't edit due to lack of access.
> 
> In that case, you have the leverage of your friendship.




Ah, I see and understand, now.  I afraid I am not as kind or understanding as your rabbi friend.  To be honest, that I know I would react very poorly is one of the reasons I'm against the idea of doxxing -- I'm not very uncommon in regards to how I would react.


----------



## Umbran

Rottle said:


> I am worried this road you want to take.  I want to protect those who need it as much as anyone.  But this line you are crossing it leads to a dark place where individuals get to meet out justice, individuals with no accountability.




It is not, "a road I want to take".  I would prefer we take other roads.  But those roads do call from somewhat concerted peer pressure to be exerted.  Other roads generally require a cultural shift.  Thus the discussion.

In the meantime, I think this makes a fair question.  Set aside what we want.  What do you *expect* those who have legitimate grievance to do when both peers and legal system falls short most of the time?

There's a couple different answers.  1) Work to change the culture, so peers don't fall short (that's what the article that inspired the OP came from, and that's what this thread is about.  2) Work to change the legal system, so that doesn't fall short - historically, this is difficult, and really out of scope for EN World.  3) Hit back.

You want folks to avoid (3)?  Then assist with (1) and (2).


----------



## Rottle

Umbran said:


> It is not, "a road I want to take".  I would prefer we take other roads.  But those roads do call from somewhat concerted peer pressure to be exerted.  Other roads generally require a cultural shift.  Thus the discussion.
> 
> In the meantime, I think this makes a fair question.  Set aside what we want.  What do you *expect* those who have legitimate grievance to do when both peers and legal system falls short most of the time?
> 
> There's a couple different answers.  1) Work to change the culture, so peers don't fall short (that's what the article that inspired the OP came from, and that's what this thread is about.  2) Work to change the legal system, so that doesn't fall short - historically, this is difficult, and really out of scope for EN World.  3) Hit back.
> 
> You want folks to avoid (3)?  Then assist with (1) and (2).




Want was a bad choice of words, sorry for its misuse.  What little I can do I will for roads one and two.  But 3 is not to me a safe or even legit option.  It's online lynching and that can't end well.  I get the frustration, I do, I share it.  Resorting to this type of hitting back is a line I don't think we can cross and still be on the side of angels.   I would rather lose the war then lose myself in the fighting of it.  

That is why this frustrates me so.  I want to hit back so hard no harasser would dare to show their face, but if I am wrong just once then I will have become the very coward I was decrying.


----------



## Umbran

Rottle said:


> I get the frustration, I do, I share it.




With respect, you probably don't.  I mean, has one of your personal friends had to leave their home because of threats against their person that couldn't be prosecuted?  I know I'm not that close to it - but a lady I know in game development had it happen to her boss.  I don't claim to get or share their frustration, and unless you've been there, you probably shouldn't either.  



> Resorting to this type of hitting back is a line I don't think we can cross and still be on the side of angels.




We?  Dude, nobody is asking you to do so, or to be complicit in such an act.  And I'm not going to do it, for much the same reason you won't.  But, realistically, as a sheer practical matter, *someone* is apt to do so, aren't they?  I'll not be surprised if someone informs me that it has already happened.

I mean, among gamers and geeks, don't we already nearly worship Batman?


----------



## Rottle

Umbran said:


> With respect, you probably don't.  I mean, has one of your personal friends had to leave their home because of threats against their person that couldn't be prosecuted?  I know I'm not that close to it - but a lady I know in game development had it happen to her boss.  I don't claim to get or share their frustration, and unless you've been there, you probably shouldn't either.




If you don't accept that I am frustrated enough by this then you don't, enough said.  



> We?  Dude, nobody is asking you to do so, or to be complicit in such an act.  And I'm not going to do it, for much the same reason you won't.  But, realistically, as a sheer practical matter, *someone* is apt to do so, aren't they?  I'll not be surprised if someone informs me that it has already happened.




And it wouldn't be a good thing if it has been done.  



> I mean, among gamers and geeks, don't we already nearly worship Batman?




Never liked batman, he does things we would as a society would throw cops in jail for doing.  He is, in some comics, as bad or far worse then some of those he fights.  Always been a Superman fan.

Still I do get why you and I are not seeing eye to eye on this.... you live in Boston and I am in New York.


----------



## DOTTIE

The woman should have been taught by her mother how to respect men, to dress conservatively and not provocatively, and not to take provocative stances like leaning over tables with a skirt on.  At 13, she shouldn't have been at the store alone, because there are nasty men out there.  If someone dresses conservatively, and isn't being provocative around men, and she is still being bothered, then she should only go with a group of girls or a male friend or relative.

It's not fair to the gaming industry or white male gamers to accuse all of them of sexual harassment or worse.  We don't want to give gaming a bad reputation, and any case of rape should be handled by the police.


----------



## MechaPilot

DOTTIE said:


> The woman should have been taught by her mother how to respect men, to dress conservatively and not provocatively, and not to take provocative stances like leaning over tables with a skirt on.  At 13, she shouldn't have been at the store alone, because there are nasty men out there.




You're blaming the victim.

The way you "respect men" is by treating them with the same human dignity that you would expect for yourself.  The notion that you have to dress like a nun to protect men from falling to their own raging desires is disrespectful to men because it treats them as if they were unable to resist turning into rape-monsters when they see an attractive woman.

Also, leaning over a table is not "taking a provocative stance."  It's often an integral part of playing a game.  In any game that uses miniatures, it's a practical necessity to get a good look at the battlefield before taking your turn, and that can certainly mean having to lean over the table.  I've often had to lean over tables to play Risk, Axis & Allies, Shogun, Chess, and TTRPGs where minis were used for combat encounters, and I never did it with the intent of showing off anything other than my skill at playing those TTRPGs/board-games.

The wearing of a skirt is also a total non-issue.  Skirts cover far more than bikinis, and men can be around women in bikinis without suddenly transforming into rape-hungry tentacle monsters.  And if you want to talk conservatism of dress, skirts are part of the uniform for attending certain religious schools, not to mention them being part of the uniform for a vast number of non-religious schools.  Most skirts are not micro- or mini-skirts.  Most skirts are knee-length and allow a fair amount of lean to occur before any glimpse of panty is visible.


----------



## LordEntrails

[MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION],
Don't respond to such statement. If it wasn't meant as sarcasm, then it was obvious trolling. DOTTIE is a brand new account, 1 post, just created to rile you up.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DOTTIE said:


> The woman should have been taught by her mother how to respect men, to dress conservatively and not provocatively, and not to take provocative stances like leaning over tables with a skirt on.  At 13, she shouldn't have been at the store alone, because there are nasty men out there.  If someone dresses conservatively, and isn't being provocative around me, and she is still being bothered, then she should only go with a group of girls or a male friend or relative.
> 
> It's not fair to the gaming industry or white male gamers to accuse all of them of sexual harassment or worse.  We don't want to give gaming a bad reputation, and any case of rape should be handled by the police.




I got a fever, and the prescription is...MORE MONOLITH!


----------



## Umbran

Rottle said:


> If you don't accept that I am frustrated enough by this then you don't, enough said.




Totally not the point.

I will risk overstating to make the point:  Would you walk up to a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan who had PTSD, and say, "I know how you feel,"?  Probably not, right?  Without getting into an argument about degree, the basic logic is the same.  Not that you aren't frustrated, but that your frustration should not be compared directly with theirs, and your feelings on the matter are not the same as theirs.

(This was a note they gave us in training for convention security - don't compare your own feelings, even if you've been through something similar)




> Still I do get why you and I are not seeing eye to eye on this.... you live in Boston and I am in New York.




I was born and raised in New York.  I'm a transplant to Boston in my adult life.  Which means I either keep my mouth shut in discussions of baseball, or I say, "Go Mets!" and both sides will shake their heads sadly in pity and leave me alone.


----------



## MechaPilot

LordEntrails said:


> [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION],
> Don't respond to such statement. If it wasn't meant as sarcasm, then it was obvious trolling. DOTTIE is a brand new account, 1 post, just created to rile you up.




You're right, I shouldn't.  I often don't, just as a matter of personal policy.  I've just had a bad day today.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> You're right, I shouldn't.  I often don't, just as a matter of personal policy.  I've just had a bad day today.




I don't think it hurts to have it said, to be honest.  And you said it well.


----------



## Hussar

Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> it's white men that can't recognize the problem
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482661-Harassment-in-gaming/page68#ixzz47BCZsekx




But, isn't that the point here?  That the harassers, and I think we've all pretty much agreed on this point, are almost always white men, in this social situation.  Now, there are many, many reasons for this, primarily demographics - the hobby is very much populated and dominated by white men, so, it does make sense that just simply through numbers most harassment would be done by white men.  But, since this specific group - in this case, predominantly white men - have a fairly lengthy history of harassment in the hobby, I'd say that it's not terribly unfair to say that white men are not recognizing the problem.

If they were recognizing the problem, then the problem would largely be solved.  The whole point of the rhetoric is to get people talking.  Job well done there.  We've got considerable conversation going on here, and I would hope that it's being seen by more than just the people posting in this thread and the word is spreading.  And that word is, "In our hobby, we have a problem with the majority group either directly harassing minority demographics in the hobby or standing on the sidelines and not doing anything to help resolve the issue."  That you and I both belong to that majority group does not mean that we are automatically terrorists or cowards.

She's pretty specific in the blog post.  Those perpetrating these actions are doing so maliciously with the intent of forcing women and POC out of the hobby.  Those standing on the sidelines and not doing anything, are every bit part of the problem, since they aren't actually doing anything to prevent those who are maliciously driving people out of the hobby.  Thus, they get called out as cowards.

Now, if someone is actively doing things to resolve issues, then they are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution.  Whether those actions are relatively minor like complaining on a forum about chainmail bikinis or taking the time to tell buddy that maybe dick jokes aren't appropriate at that particular time, or taking more direct action like getting involved in a legal dispute or whatever.  Doesn't matter what you are doing, so long as you are doing something.  Those that just stand on the sidelines are not relieved of any responsibility.  Closing your eyes doesn't make the problem go away.  And anyone who isn't stepping in is part of the problem, whether directly or indirectly.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> I don't think it hurts to have it said, to be honest.  And you said it well.




Thank you.  I did my best to reply intellectually instead of going with my gut response, which was as you might expect FAR more harsh (and expletive-filled) than my reply ended up being.


----------



## Nylanfs

MechaPilot said:


> Thank you.  I did my best to reply intellectually instead of going with my gut response, which was as you might expect FAR more harsh (and expletive-filled) than my reply ended up being.




Hmm, I might have paid to see that post.


----------



## MechaPilot

Nylanfs said:


> Hmm, I might have paid to see that post.




It would have been very blue.  Imagine if Richard Pryor had just come home from a tour of service in the navy (which, deserved or no, has a reputation for making people more potty-mouthed than they already are).  However, a post might not have done the gut reaction justice.  I mean, is there a smily that's actually so angry or ranty that it's spitting as it yells?


----------



## Eltab

MechaPilot said:


> I mean, is there a smily that's actually so angry or ranty that it's spitting as it yells?



Not on this board.  You would have to merge these:
     
and a few more.

But if anybody out there is a budding artist ...


----------



## Rottle

I actually took that post in the same vain as swift's modest proposal.......


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> With respect, you probably don't.



For someone arguing that we shouldn't question the intent or words of someone complaining of harassment, this is rank hypocrisy.  

And before you question my credentials as to not understanding the frustration, I've sat in hospital hoping for word that a gay friend of mine would pull through after having his throat cut by a bunch of redneck yahoos that thought the guy in drag walking home would make for fun sport.  He didn't make it.  That's ONE of my painful brushes with harassment and abuse.  If you need a woman, because a gay man isn't good enough, how about my girlfriend that was raped by a fellow gamer?  She was ostracized for being _unfaithful to me_ despite me saying that the guy raped her.  We both found a different group of friends.  She couldn't even bring herself to report it because of the social pressure applied to _her _over the issue.

So, maybe, just maybe, climb down off of your high horse of determining who's able to say they understand or empathize with the outrage and frustration that comes from harassment.  You just look like a supreme jerk and gatekeeper of the one true thought.


> I mean, among gamers and geeks, don't we already nearly worship Batman?



"What Would Batman Do?" is a _stupendously _stupid argument.


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> And that word is, "In our hobby, we have a problem with the majority group either directly harassing minority demographics in the hobby or standing on the sidelines and not doing anything to help resolve the issue."




No, that's not quite right.

In our hobby, we have a minority of people harassing other people, a minority of people condoning such behaviour, and a majority that either speak up against it, or are unaware of it.  



> She's pretty specific in the blog post.  Those perpetrating these actions are doing so maliciously with the intent of forcing women and POC out of the hobby.




In her opinion.  She fails to mention how she knows what their intent is.



> Those standing on the sidelines and not doing anything, are every bit part of the problem, since they aren't actually doing anything to prevent those who are maliciously driving people out of the hobby.  Thus, they get called out as cowards.




I actually don't think what the original article said is very relevant anymore, but for the sake of accuracy, she did not say "those standing on the sidelines" (implying men who were witnessing harassment and not doing anything about it).  She said:



> [White male terrorism] succeeds because *the majority of men in the community* are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists.






> *The majority of gamers* ... are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment.






> “ behaviour” only persists because *the majority of men are too cowardly* to call the s what they are.




Her claim is that the "majority of men" in gaming are as bad as those doing the harassing, _because they are clearly cowards or racists_ ("It is almost impossible to convince gamers that sexist and racist jokes are unacceptable").  She (and you, apparently) makes no allowance for those who have simply never witnessed any harassment in their gaming experiences.



> If they were recognizing the problem, then the problem would largely be solved.




Please explain.  The majority of people recognize crime as a problem, yet crime is not "largely solved".


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> For someone arguing that we shouldn't question the intent or words of someone complaining of harassment, this is rank hypocrisy.




If they had said, "I've had that happen to me," I would not have questioned it.

But, that's not what happened.  They instead asserted that they shared the emotional state of one who has been a victim, _without claiming to have been harassed_.  So, I don't see how there's any hypocrisy there at all, much less it be rank.

Beyond that is something that comes out of both security training and grief counseling training - you shouldn't compare your own emotional experiences to a victim's *even if* you think you've been through an experience similar enough.  For one thing, whether *you* feel it is similar enough is beside the point - if you are incorrect, you have effectively belittled the pain of another.  Moreover, while there are some general classes of responses to harassment and other traumatic events, when dealing with an individual, the details of their feelings on the matter will be idiosyncratic, unique to them.  Two people will react to similar events, and even the same event, in different ways.  If you make a claim to having the same experience, you tend to actually believe their reaction will be the same as yours, and that's a mistake.



> If you need a woman, because a gay man isn't good enough, how about my girlfriend that was raped by a fellow gamer?




My wife is a rape survivor as well.  What you won't see is me then claiming to understand how *you* feel about it.  That's the real point.  It isn't about having credentials, as if having some specific set of life events allows you a seat at the discussion, or something.  It is about not asserting you know how others feel.  



> So, maybe, just maybe, climb down off of your high horse




This is not a constructive way to address anyone.  




> "What Would Batman Do?" is a _stupendously _stupid argument.




In a literal sense, yes.  But, the fact remains that our culture still generally believes in taking matters into your own hands on occasion - our love of Batman, superheroes, and rogue cops who go outside the law when they have to are indicative - so you can expect that some folks will feel it is okay to do so.


----------



## Shasarak

Hmm, I do not like people being harassed and on the other hand I do not like being called a White Male Terrorist so I guess that makes me apathetic.


----------



## MechaPilot

Shasarak said:


> Hmm, I do not like people being harassed and on the other hand I do not like being called a White Male Terrorist so I guess that makes me apathetic.




Not really.  Being apathetic means you simply don't care.  You care, on both counts.  You don't like harassment, and hopefully you would stand up against it if you saw it going on (you've always seemed like a decent person when we've talked here and on the WotC forums, so I suspect you might at least tell a harasser to stop acting like a jerk)  You also don't care for the inflammatory language used in the article.  I think a fair amount of people don't, but I also think many of realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the language in the provoking article wasn't so inflammatory.  The inflammatory language has hurt the discussion, certainly, but it's really a personal judgement call as to whether it has done more harm with the hard feelings and periodic derailments than the amount of harm that's done by not addressing harassment.


----------



## Shasarak

MechaPilot said:


> Not really.  Being apathetic means you simply don't care.  You care, on both counts.  You don't like harassment, and hopefully you would stand up against it if you saw it going on (you've always seemed like a decent person when we've talked here and on the WotC forums, so I suspect you might at least tell a harasser to stop acting like a jerk)  You also don't care for the inflammatory language used in the article.  I think a fair amount of people don't, but I also think many of realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the language in the provoking article wasn't so inflammatory.  The inflammatory language has hurt the discussion, certainly, but it's really a personal judgement call as to whether it has done more harm with the hard feelings and periodic derailments than the amount of harm that's done by not addressing harassment.




I dont want to associate with the crazies on either side so that puts me firmly in the apathetic camp.  Just let me play my game.


----------



## MechaPilot

Shasarak said:


> I dont want to associate with the crazies on either side so that puts me firmly in the apathetic camp.  Just let me play my game.




I'm a little confused.  Are you including people who are being harassed in "the crazies?"  What about the people who see someone being harassed and say something about it?  And what about the people who think that harassment is a problem and advocate for doing something about it, but who don't use the kind of inflammatory language found in the article (for instance, me)?  Are you lumping them (or even me) in with "the crazies" too?  That doesn't jive with the impression that I have of you, especially not after you were kind enough on the WotC forums to PM me about comments I made that led you to believe I was having problems (and boy was I ever at the time).


----------



## S'mon

MechaPilot said:


> I'm a little confused.  Are you including people who are being harassed in "the crazies?"




People who claim - and in some sense believe - they've been harrassed when they haven't really, and people who grotesquely exaggerate minor incidents, could count as crazy in my book. I guess people who claim that all such claims should be believed, no matter how seemingly improbable, and race/gender groups condemned on that basis, could also be considered crazy. I tend to think they are mostly just bad, not mad, though the more radical ones may be somewhat disturbed.


----------



## Springheel

Umbran said:


> In a literal sense, yes.  But, the fact remains that our culture still generally believes in taking matters into your own hands on occasion - our love of Batman, superheroes, and rogue cops who go outside the law when they have to are indicative - so you can expect that *some folks will feel it is okay *to do so.




Which says absolutely nothing about whether it actually IS okay to do so, as you implied when you first used it as an example.

Some folks apparently "feel it is okay" to grope cosplayers, but we don't condone that.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

MechaPilot said:


> I also think many of realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the language in the provoking article wasn't so inflammatory




Or, she could learn to write persuasively _without_ using such cheap and bigoted rhetoric.

I, for one, was turned off by her use of terms like "coward" and "white male terrorist."  What I found persuasive were the incidents she mentioned.  They raised my passion about this issue.  They would have been even more persuasive if she had provided ways to fact check them.  Her use of cheap and inflammatory rhetoric raises my suspicion that those incidents are made up.  They make her text less persuasive.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Darkwing Duck said:


> Or, she could learn to write persuasively _without_ using such cheap and bigoted rhetoric.
> 
> I, for one, was turned off by her use of terms like "coward" and "white male terrorist."  What I found persuasive were the incidents she mentioned.  They raised my passion about this issue.  They would have been even more persuasive if she had provided ways to fact check them.  Her use of cheap and inflammatory rhetoric raises my suspicion that those incidents are made up.



You're _still_ stuck there?  Repeating myself:



Dannyalcatraz said:


> The issue ISN'T about her ability to write well.  Dismissing the validity of her claims or choosing not to engage in a discussion of them on the merits because of the relative skill with which she makes the claim is a logical fallacy.
> 
> If you saw a woman running down the street chased by a hockey-masked, machete wielding man, and she was just uttering an inarticulate, wordless scream, would you sit there and say, "Well, she could have phrased that better..."?




And the lack of verifiability in a great number of these incidents _is part of the issue._. How does one prove a barely heard comment, a quick grope in a crowd or a verbal chant in public where the only one not chanting is the victim?


----------



## cmad1977

Darkwing Duck said:


> Or, she could learn to write persuasively _without_ using such cheap and bigoted rhetoric.
> 
> I, for one, was turned off by her use of terms like "coward" and "white male terrorist."  What I found persuasive were the incidents she mentioned.  They raised my passion about this issue.  They would have been even more persuasive if she had provided ways to fact check them.  Her use of cheap and inflammatory rhetoric raises my suspicion that those incidents are made up.  They make her text less persuasive.




Because what's important isn't the message it's the tone!
Seriously though... If you aren't tough enough to see through some harsh words it's possible they apply.


----------



## tomBitonti

cmad1977 said:


> Because what's important isn't the message it's the tone!
> Seriously though... If you aren't tough enough to see through some harsh words it's possible they apply.




This issue has been raised several times, with the response Being to look past the words used to the core issue.

We can do both: Looking at the words used and saying that the message could have been delivered better is possible while at the same time accepting that harassment is a problem and working to reduce it.  One doesn't have to do only one and not do the other.

Also, the complaint isn't just about tone.  The complaint is about accuracy.  A person can reasonably look at a message and try to figure out how true it is.  Given the vast quantity of misinformation which abounds on the net, having a strong filter seems necessary.

Another complaint (which I previously made) is that the message uses a number of techniques to play rough with emotions.  Going for a strong emotional response while sidestepping reason.  To go "hey wait a sec" doesn't seem unreasonable.

Edit: One response has been to say, "ok, so while not literally true, we can look aside and see that such events occur with enough frequency that we ought to look past the lack of literal truth".  Sure, but this seems to be a very dangerous mode in which to operate.  It is very easy to substitute what one believes to be true for actual truth.  One has to ground reason in knowledge which is much more concrete.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The issue ISN'T about her ability to write well.




As long as people are excusing away her use of inflammatory and bigoted accusations on her ability to write persuasively, such as MechaPilot did here


MechaPilot said:


> I also think many of realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the language in the provoking article wasn't so inflammatory.



Then, her use of such offensive flames IS on topic, regardless of whether _you_ like it or not.


> And the lack of verifiability in a great number of these incidents is part of the issue.



Why should i believe that someone is telling the truth when there is no evidence to support them?


----------



## Darkwing Duck

cmad1977 said:


> Because what's important isn't the message it's the tone!
> Seriously though... If you aren't tough enough to see through some harsh words it's possible they apply.



But, it is likely that they don't.

Your argument "OMG, that guy got offended when I said he was guilty, that's _proof_ that he's guilty!" is not how things work in the real world.  It is batshit crazy.


----------



## Morrus

Wowzer. Checked back in after a week or so. Still not talking about harassment, I see.


----------



## Umbran

Nope.  Tried to bring it back around a couple of times, but to not much avail.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> Wowzer. Checked back in after a week or so. Still not talking about harassment, I see.




The writer of the original letter sabotaged any attempt at a civil discussion when she chose to use the bigoted language she did.

I believe we could have a civil discussion on harassment if people stopped trying to defend her actions.  What she did was wrong.  It was inexcusable.  It was needlessly inflammatory.  Now, let it lie dead in the past and move on to a decent discussion of harassment, one which doesn't try to excuse away calling people "terrorist" and "coward".


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> The writer of the original letter sabotaged any attempt at a civil discussion when she chose to use the bigoted language she did.
> 
> I believe we could have a civil discussion on harassment if people stopped trying to defend her actions.  What she did was wrong.  It was inexcusable.  It was needlessly inflammatory.  Now, let it lie dead in the past and move on to a decent discussion of harassment, one which doesn't try to excuse away calling people "terrorist" and "coward".




Didn't you say that before, like a billion times? We get it. Repetition doesn't increase  our understanding of your opinion of her language.  We didn't fail to understand you the first, second, or tenth time. Nobody is in the slightest doubt about your repeatedly explained position on that subject. You've been absolutely, explicitly, repeatedly clear. Over and over and over and over and over and over again. Frankly, you're taking boredom to an extreme I've never encountered. How many times can one person say the same thing? Dude, you're boring. 

We get it. Now let's talk about harrassment.  Please? We're 700 posts in. We know your delicate feelings were hurt by the heading used by a blogger. Are the rest of us allowed to talk about harassment yet? Please? Can we consider your hurt feelings stated and acknowledged, and not in need of further repetition? Can we please talk about harrassment now? Please?

If not, then I'll take the effort to split the posts about a blogger's writing style into its own thread, and you can repeat yourself to your heart's content. I'd rather not do the work, but if you insist that the subject be discussed further, that seems like the way ahead.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> Didn't you say that before, like a billion times?




Are you gonna talk about me or focus on harassment?


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> Are you gonna talk about me or focus on harassment?




Well, if you're gonna insist on throwing down a gauntlet - we're gonna talk about harassment. 

If you - or anyone else - wish to talk about the blogger's writing style, please start your own thread about the subject. You are welcome to discuss it, but not to continue to hijack this thread with it. As of this point, discussion of the blogger's writing style of choice of headline belongs elsewhere. Thanks for making that easy for me.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> If you - or anyone else - wish to talk about the blogger's writing style, please start your own thread about the subject.




Since the discussion was about her letter, discussing her letter, as I did, wasn't hi-jacking anything.
I'm quite happy to change the topic from her letter to harassment in general.  I said we can treat the letter as a dead thing in the past.
But, here you are again, discussing me rather than harassment.


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> Since the discussion was about her letter, discussing her letter, as I did, wasn't hi-jacking anything.
> I'm quite happy to change the topic from her letter to harassment in general.  I said we can treat the letter as a dead thing in the past.
> But, here you are again, discussing me rather than harassment.




And there you go, arguing about moderation in-thread, which is clearly against the rules you agreed to. Do not post again in this thread. Everyone else, feel free to discuss harassment in this thread, or someone's choice of headline in a new thread.


----------



## Darkwing Duck

Morrus said:


> And there you go, arguing about moderation in-thread, which is clearly against the rules you agreed to. Do not post again in this thread. Everyone else, feel free to discuss harassment in this thread, or someone's choice of headline in a new thread.




You've been arguing about moderation for a long time here.  And you don't own this thread.
Now, are you going to keep talking about _me_ or are you going to talk about harassment?  Your actions are saying that you don't want to talk about harassment.


----------



## Morrus

Darkwing Duck said:


> You've been arguing about moderation for a long time here.  And you don't own this thread.
> Now, are you going to keep talking about _me_ or are you going to talk about harassment?  Your actions are saying that you don't want to talk about harassment.




Sigh. Escalation McEscalationface. Your call. See you in a week, if you decide to return (although not to this thread, as you were asked to leave it).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

_Dude..._


----------



## DOTTIE

MechaPilot said:


> You're blaming the victim.
> 
> The way you "respect men" is by treating them with the same human dignity that you would expect for yourself.  The notion that you have to dress like a nun to protect men from falling to their own raging desires is disrespectful to men because it treats them as if they were unable to resist turning into rape-monsters when they see an attractive woman.
> 
> Also, leaning over a table is not "taking a provocative stance."  It's often an integral part of playing a game.  In any game that uses miniatures, it's a practical necessity to get a good look at the battlefield before taking your turn, and that can certainly mean having to lean over the table.  I've often had to lean over tables to play Risk, Axis & Allies, Shogun, Chess, and TTRPGs where minis were used for combat encounters, and I never did it with the intent of showing off anything other than my skill at playing those TTRPGs/board-games.
> 
> The wearing of a skirt is also a total non-issue.  Skirts cover far more than bikinis, and men can be around women in bikinis without suddenly transforming into rape-hungry tentacle monsters.  And if you want to talk conservatism of dress, skirts are part of the uniform for attending certain religious schools, not to mention them being part of the uniform for a vast number of non-religious schools.  Most skirts are not micro- or mini-skirts.  Most skirts are knee-length and allow a fair amount of lean to occur before any glimpse of panty is visible.




First, I didn't say anything about men becoming rape monsters.  That is crazy!

If a game calls upon players to lean over a table, why would you wear a skirt for that?

Gaming is definitely a male-dominated hobby, but that doesn't exclude anyone.  There is every reason to expect the people there to be courteous, and respectful back to you if you are courteous and respectful to them.

That's all I can say now.  I'll try to get back to this later.


----------



## Eltab

Mods, my comment following is more accurately aimed at you:



MechaPilot said:


> ... don't care for the inflammatory language used in the article. ... The inflammatory language has hurt the discussion, certainly, ...



After reviewing ENWorld's Code of Conduct, I do not see why OP's linked article was not flagged for violations.  It fails to 'be respectful' and 'be polite'.  It stomps all over the borderlines for 'no politics.'

How do you see it?

Thanks.


----------



## Eltab

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How does one prove a verbal chant in public where the only one not chanting is the victim?



Smart phone, wired for sight and sound, and streaming live, and creating a file on YouTube.


----------



## MechaPilot

DOTTIE said:


> If a game calls upon players to lean over a table, why would you wear a skirt for that?




Why wouldn't I wear a skirt for that?  I find skirts much more comfortable than pants. They don't give that "I don't care how I look" vibe that sweat-pants give off.  They're certainly more discrete than yoga pants.  They don't disrupt the pieces on the board.  Also, a knee-length skirt provides enough coverage that you can lean over without even showing panty (not that showing panty would be an excuse for people to harass someone).  Plus, between leaning and being able to walk around the table, it's not as if you have to completely bend over to get a good look at the board/battlefield.

And it's not like I expect men to be blind or to avert their eyes.  If I lean over in a skirt and a guy (or girl for that matter) likes what he sees, that's fine.  Just be respectful about it: don't stare, don't make rude comments, don't touch without asking.  A good rule of thumb is if you'd have a problem with someone doing it to your mother, sister, or daughter, then don't do it to me.


----------



## MechaPilot

Eltab said:


> Smart phone, wired for sight and sound, and streaming live, and creating a file on YouTube.




So women should be wired for video and sound in a manner that creates an off-site record whenever they go out in public?  Also, I'm not very up to date on smartphones, but how does a smartphone record action that could occur from any angle?  If you have it set up to record what's in front of you, it's going to completely miss recording some dude grabbing your butt.


----------



## DOTTIE

Eltab said:


> Mods, my comment following is more accurately aimed at you:
> 
> 
> After reviewing ENWorld's Code of Conduct, I do not see why OP's linked article was not flagged for violations.  It fails to 'be respectful' and 'be polite'.  It stomps all over the borderlines for 'no politics.'
> 
> How do you see it?
> 
> Thanks.




Will this thread be deleted then?  What happens?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

DOTTIE said:


> If a game calls upon players to lean over a table, why would you wear a skirt for that?




If a game calls upon players to lean over a table, why would you wear tight jeans for that?
If a game calls upon players to lean over a table, why would you wear shorts for that?

It isn't about the clothes, it is about not treating people as objects.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Eltab said:


> Smart phone, wired for sight and sound, and streaming live, and creating a file on YouTube.




As MechaPilot points out, there are problems with implementing this.  Unless the woman is recording 24/7 in all directions simultaneously, there will be a both time/reaction and LoS gaps between behavior and record.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

*Advice For Handling Conversations And Conflicts After Harassment Is Observed*

In order to curb the problem of harassment, male gamers are going to have to step up.

Here is some of the best advice I have seen on how men can take steps to deal with the problem of harassment:



> COMMUNICATE with someone who looks uncomfortable. Don’t let them wander off feeling like nobody cares. Ask simple things like “Are you OK?” and listen to what’s said. If they need to go to convention security, get them to convention security. If they just want to leave, separate them from the people harassing them and let them leave on their own, or ask the harasser to leave. It’s the person who’s made uncomfortable’s choice about who leaves the situation, not yours.
> 
> CALL PEOPLE OUT on bad manners. Explain that bad manners have consequences. Explain that this is a public space, and they can either conform to the expected standards of behavior or they can leave. Or you can threaten to leave — this is a pedal democracy; people show their displeasure by leaving. I’ve told gaming tables “You can have me playing, or your rape jokes. Choose now.”



As you can see, the steps above involve confronting others to some degree.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with confronting other people. I have a hard time dealing with strangers in a direct, authoritative way unless I'm really pissed off. 

I am also aware that being pissed doesn't help a situation. It usually makes it worse.

So here's my question:

For those of you that have had training or experience in dealing with difficult situations involving harassment or abuse, or have had training or experience in how to engage someone behaving badly in a conversation so it does not turn into a conflict, what are some general pointers you can share on how to assess a situation, to assess a person or persons, and how to address someone else, so things don't devolve into a shouting match or a fist fight?

EDIT: Is there any recommended reading as well? Blogs, books, etc.?


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As MechaPilot points out, there are problems with implementing this.  Unless the woman is recording 24/7 in all directions simultaneously, there will be a both time/reaction and LoS gaps between behavior and record.




There's also the Pariah aspect.

It's very possible that a person, regardless of gender, wearing a 360 degree audio-video rig that transmits and saves the data off-site would be asked to leave a store for making others uncomfortable (I doubt such a rig would be inconspicuous).  I also suspect that a person with such a rig would probably see people at a con not wanting to game at the same table she's at.

And even if the pariah aspect weren't present, there's also potential transmission issues.  I see people having difficulty with cell phone reception all the time, I can easily imagine that transmitting from a smartphone would be subject to the same transmission limitations as placing/receiving a phone call.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> There's also the Pariah aspect.
> 
> It's very possible that a person, regardless of gender, wearing a 360 degree audio-video rig that transmits and saves the data off-site would be asked to leave a store for making others uncomfortable (I doubt such a rig would be inconspicuous).  I also suspect that a person with such a rig would probably see people at a con not wanting to game at the same table she's at.




A.K.A. the "Glass-hole" issue.  As Google found out with Google Glass devices, people don't like being recorded without permission.  Some places even barred the use of Glass devices.



> And even if the pariah aspect weren't present, there's also potential transmission issues.  I see people having difficulty with cell phone reception all the time, I can easily imagine that transmitting from a smartphone would be subject to the same transmission limitations as placing/receiving a phone call.




And whose contract is going to support that much data usage?*  Whose battery will last through an entire day of recoding all that stuff?








* even if there is, it won't be cheap, and is adding a requirement of busying such contacts just for safety another "Woman Tax" we want to add to our culture?


----------



## Hussar

DOTTIE said:


> First, I didn't say anything about men becoming rape monsters.  That is crazy!
> 
> If a game calls upon players to lean over a table, why would you wear a skirt for that?
> 
> Gaming is definitely a male-dominated hobby, but that doesn't exclude anyone.  There is every reason to expect the people there to be courteous, and respectful back to you if you are courteous and respectful to them.
> 
> That's all I can say now.  I'll try to get back to this later.




For some reason, I really, REALLY doubt anyone is grabbing these asses - despite showing lots more than a skirt would:

I participated in one of the biggest Magic: the Gathering tournaments of all time this weekend. In an effort to document it, I posed for pictures near people with exposed asscracks. I present to you Grand Prix Richmond Crackstyle.

So, it's kinda one sided no?


----------



## Hussar

Eltab said:


> Mods, my comment following is more accurately aimed at you:
> 
> 
> After reviewing ENWorld's Code of Conduct, I do not see why OP's linked article was not flagged for violations.  It fails to 'be respectful' and 'be polite'.  It stomps all over the borderlines for 'no politics.'
> 
> How do you see it?
> 
> Thanks.




I have to admit that the irony here is absolutely fantastic.

Woman:  I am very angry.  I have been groped, harassed, and treated like crap for years by white men in our hobby.  I demand that we talk about this and talk about this right now.
Man:  Sorry, you weren't polite enough in your request.  Come back when you can ask nicely.
Woman:  *headsplodes*

Good grief.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

I have to say that when I see the word "terrorist" in the link/title of an article, when I read it, I had better find an article about _actual terrorists_.

Our broader hobby (passion, pass-time, whatever) of "gaming" has within it minority elements of clueless men engaged in rotten behavior that does nothing but ruin our reputation, drive people away, and perpetuate our nicheness.   That doesn't mean that it's accurate to use the same word for a dudebro  d-bag or greasy groper as one would use for the subhuman villains who  flew airplanes into building or shot up an entertainment district.  Hyperbole, turning the verbiage up to 11, and throwing the most negatively evocative words around one can think of, only serves to corrode the public discourse, alienate people, and create an excuse to not talk about the actual issue at hand.  


That said, the sort of behavior that drove the writer of that article to that level of anger exists, I've seen it, of several sorts.  The faults of her writing style don't magically dispel that behavior out of existence.  Eventually the community has to stop looking for excuses to not look those issues in the eye.


----------



## Springheel

cmad1977 said:


> Seriously though... If you aren't tough enough to see through some harsh words it's possible they apply.




That response is a bit ironic in a thread like this, isn't it? 



> Are the rest of us allowed to talk about harassment yet? Please?




Setting aside the question of how one person's posts keep "the rest of us" from discussing harassment or anything else, there seems to be a pretty high number of posts about harassment in the thread...what should be discussed that hasn't already been said?


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> For some reason, I really, REALLY doubt anyone is grabbing these asses - despite showing lots more than a skirt would:
> 
> I participated in one of the biggest Magic: the Gathering tournaments of all time this weekend. In an effort to document it, I posed for pictures near people with exposed asscracks. I present to you Grand Prix Richmond Crackstyle.
> 
> So, it's kinda one sided no?




It absolutely is one-sided.  Most people will chuckle or groan at this.  Now imagine if it were the same male gamer taking photos next to women who were exposing skin and took photos without their knowledge. That would fall under sexual harassment, would it not?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hussar said:


> For some reason, I really, REALLY doubt anyone is grabbing these asses - despite showing lots more than a skirt would:
> 
> I participated in one of the biggest Magic: the Gathering tournaments of all time this weekend. In an effort to document it, I posed for pictures near people with exposed asscracks. I present to you Grand Prix Richmond Crackstyle.
> 
> So, it's kinda one sided no?




OMG!!  Someone call a drywall repairman to spackle up those cracks!


----------



## billd91

Springheel said:


> It absolutely is one-sided.  Most people will chuckle or groan at this.  Now imagine if it were the same male gamer taking photos next to women who were exposing skin and took photos without their knowledge. That would fall under sexual harassment, would it not?




And one would hope someone caught doing so might face punishment like the guy behind the asscrack photo set reportedly got (an 18 month ban).


----------



## Umbran

Eltab said:


> How do you see it?





I see it as *AGAIN* diverting the discussion to the language used in the linked article, rather than to the actual topic of harassment.  I see that as begin going against Morrus' express instructions, and after someone has already gotten a tempban.

For your own good, please don't post in this thread again.  Thank you.


----------



## DOTTIE

sanishiver said:


> In order to curb the problem of harassment, male gamers are going to have to step up.
> 
> Here is some of the best advice I have seen on how men can take steps to deal with the problem of harassment:
> 
> As you can see, the steps above involve confronting others to some degree.
> 
> I'm pretty uncomfortable with confronting other people. I have a hard time dealing with strangers in a direct, authoritative way unless I'm really pissed off.
> 
> I am also aware that being pissed doesn't help a situation. It usually makes it worse.
> 
> So here's my question:
> 
> For those of you that have had training or experience in dealing with difficult situations involving harassment or abuse, or have had training or experience in how to engage someone behaving badly in a conversation so it does not turn into a conflict, what are some general pointers you can share on how to assess a situation, to assess a person or persons, and how to address someone else, so things don't devolve into a shouting match or a fist fight?
> 
> EDIT: Is there any recommended reading as well? Blogs, books, etc.?




Be courteous and kind.  I don't like to get into confrontations with people, either, but you don't have to be confrontational to tell someone what they're doing is bothering you.  Once people know it is, they usually stop.


----------



## DOTTIE

Hussar said:


> I have to admit that the irony here is absolutely fantastic.
> 
> Woman:  I am very angry.  I have been groped, harassed, and treated like crap for years by white men in our hobby.  I demand that we talk about this and talk about this right now.
> Man:  Sorry, you weren't polite enough in your request.  Come back when you can ask nicely.
> Woman:  *headsplodes*
> 
> Good grief.




You can't address all of those past experiences suddenly.  If you ask a stranger for help, you should be specific and address what they can do then and there.  It's understandable if you're upset, but the person you're talking isn't omnipotent.


----------



## Hussar

DOTTIE said:


> You can't address all of those past experiences suddenly.  If you ask a stranger for help, you should be specific and address what they can do then and there.  It's understandable if you're upset, but the person you're talking isn't omnipotent.




In what way did the article not address, in very specific terms, what people can do there and then?  Granted, it wasn't politely phrased, but, she's pretty bloody specific about what she would like to see from the members the hobby - stand up and denounce it, don't turn a blind eye, actively act on complaints and don't just brush them off.

What more specific things could she be asking for?

And, really, that's pretty darn good advice.  I mentioned the efforts of the police in London, England to stop harassment on public transportation.  Here's this snippet from their front page:



> If you have experienced unwanted sexual behaviour
> If you choose to report any incident of a sexual nature to the police or a member of rail staff, *you will be always be believed and taken seriously, no matter where you are in the country*. Your evidence can help us identify and catch offenders, and make sure our officers are in the right place at the right time.
> 
> You can call us on0800 40 50 40 or text 61016. For incidents that take place away from the railway, dial 101. In an emergency always call 999.
> 
> - See more at: http://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and...me/project_guardian.aspx#sthash.VDgl4m6h.dpuf




Bold and underline is mine.  See, right there, even the police have to state that complaints will be believed.  THAT'S how little faith women have that they will get any justice.  How likely do you think it is that women think that if they make a complaint about harassment at a con or a store, that they will be believed. 

Or, perhaps they will just be blamed for how they dress.  I guess wearing a skirt means that I want my ass grabbed.  It's all my fault.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

It's a thin and intensely difficult tightrope for those who make up "the system" to walk, when they're expected to believe every complaint (rightly so), AND presume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty (RIGHTLY SO).   

I don't envy them.


----------



## Eltab

MechaPilot said:


> how does a smartphone record action that could occur from any angle?



I was replying to the question about proving a chant (audio), not the video aspect; I can see where 360* video equipment would be very conspicuous.

If you think you might run into trouble, yes indeed be prepared.  A camera/mike -equipped cell phone is better than nothing at all.  It's an amateur version of the police placing a 'bug' on a turncoat within a crime ring.  If indeed "nobody will believe me without evidence", then the answer is to prepare to provide evidence if it happens a second time.  THEN the authorities - police, con organizer, arena security, whoever - have something tangible to work with.  And the nonsense can be brought to a stop.


----------



## Nylanfs

Here's the part that quite a lot of people aren't getting. Women since the second wave feminism started in the 60's *HAVE* been bringing up harassment, talking publicly about it, and asking men to stop. _It keeps happening_, so yes the inflammatory blog was necessary, because women have learned that nothing gets talked about unless white men are insulted.



DOTTIE said:


> Be courteous and kind.  I don't like to get into confrontations with people, either, but you don't have to be confrontational to tell someone what they're doing is bothering you.  Once people know it is, they usually stop.




If this were true we wouldn't *have* to be talking about this.


----------



## Eltab

Umbran said:


> Moderator Instructions



I have received your post #740 and understand.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

On the topic of speaking up when you see something, or calling out the harassers, it does come to mind that in online culture -- which overlaps heavily with gaming -- standing up for another person has come to be derided as "white knighting".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Max_Killjoy said:


> On the topic of speaking up when you see something, or calling out the harassers, it does come to mind that in online culture -- which overlaps heavily with gaming -- standing up for another person has come to be derided as "white knighting".




1) that is unfortunate

2) so THAT is what that term means


----------



## Umbran

Max_Killjoy said:


> On the topic of speaking up when you see something, or calling out the harassers, it does come to mind that in online culture -- which overlaps heavily with gaming -- standing up for another person has come to be derided as "white knighting".




Unfortunately, yes.  It is a typical response when faced with resistance - find some way to declare the resistance improper, and dismiss it.  As I understand the term, it originally referred to someone who jumped in to protect some person when no wrong had been done, or when the knight didn't actually know what was going on.  Jumping in and defending against sexual harassment when no actual harassment was taking place, for example, would be white knighting.

But, more recently, it's come to refer to a person who is coming to defense disingenuously - that they are motivated by "political correctness" or a desire to make themselves look good than because any wrong was being done.

It seems to me that this defense becomes less tenable the more people come to denounce harassment, and the more people become informed in their stands against it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Morrus said:


> Wowzer. Checked back in after a week or so. Still not talking about harassment, I see.



Perhaps it would be good to understand what you think talking about harassment looks like.  That, at least, might help you stop feeling disappointed.



Umbran said:


> Nope.  Tried to bring it back around a couple of times, but to not much avail.



I disagree that you tried.  You took pains to jump on other posters, but you did nothing positive to discuss harassment.


Darkwing Duck said:


> The writer of the original letter sabotaged any attempt at a civil discussion when she chose to use the bigoted language she did.
> 
> I believe we could have a civil discussion on harassment if people stopped trying to defend her actions.  What she did was wrong.  It was inexcusable.  It was needlessly inflammatory.  Now, let it lie dead in the past and move on to a decent discussion of harassment, one which doesn't try to excuse away calling people "terrorist" and "coward".




And this is absolute BS.  Nothing about the language poisons the ability to talk about the problem.  The language can be noted as unhelpful, yes, but that doesn't prevent actual discussion unless you're 1) actually trying to derail the conversation or 2) insisting that no one say anything bad about the language because it's against your ideology.  Both kinds in this thread.

You can note that the language was unhelpful and then talk about how a harassment policy should be structured to work effectively just fine.  No poisoning at all.

EDIT:  and I see that entire line has been shut down and the BSer booted.  Sad for the former, happy for the latter.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Max_Killjoy said:


> On the topic of speaking up when you see something, or calling out the harassers, it does come to mind that in online culture -- which overlaps heavily with gaming -- standing up for another person has come to be derided as "white knighting".




I don't think we should take the excesses of online culture as a guide for how to deal with poor social behavior.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Unfortunately, yes.  It is a typical response when faced with resistance - find some way to declare the resistance improper, and dismiss it.




*cough* like tone arguments *cough*


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't think we should take the excesses of online culture as a guide for how to deal with poor social behavior.  Just sayin'.




To be clear, I'm not offering an excuse for anything there -- I'm pointing out that part of the problem of people not speaking up is caused by the sort of vitriol that's directed at anyone who does.  



Ovinomancer said:


> *cough* like tone arguments *cough*




Tone does to some extent matter -- it has a role in shaping the discourse.  Resorting to an over the top, vitriolic tone gives the people doing the actual bad things something to hide behind, a way to pretend that THEY are the victims.  It can, as seen in this thread, distract from the crucial matters at hand.  

Now, that doesn't mean that it's actually OK for people to fixate on tone to the exclusion of the actual issues -- it's only to point out that a certain "tone" can open the door to a conversational turn that veers entirely away from any actual discussion of the issue one wanted to illuminate.


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> *cough* like tone arguments *cough*




Nice try. But the tone argument is more akin to making the "white knight" accusation - it's deflection. It's an attempt to make the initial rant improper, and dismiss it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

billd91 said:


> Nice try. But the tone argument is more akin to making the "white knight" accusation - it's deflection. It's an attempt to make the initial rant improper, and dismiss it.




I think you missed the intent, there.  I'm not talking about the initial rant at all.  I was talking about _irony_.


----------



## MechaPilot

Max_Killjoy said:


> On the topic of speaking up when you see something, or calling out the harassers, it does come to mind that in online culture -- which overlaps heavily with gaming -- standing up for another person has come to be derided as "white knighting".




Yeah, just like the whole "stop snitching" crap, it's just some elements of modern culture vilifying behavior, such as telling the truth to police and standing up for those being trodden upon, that is otherwise widely recognized as things done by decent, upstanding citizens.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Max_Killjoy said:


> To be clear, I'm not offering an excuse for anything there -- I'm pointing out that part of the problem of people not speaking up is caused by the sort of vitriol that's directed at anyone who does.
> 
> 
> 
> Tone does to some extent matter -- it has a role in shaping the discourse.  Resorting to an over the top, vitriolic tone gives the people doing the actual bad things something to hide behind, a way to pretend that THEY are the victims.  It can, as seen in this thread, distract from the crucial matters at hand.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean that it's actually OK for people to fixate on tone to the exclusion of the actual issues -- it's only to point out that a certain "tone" can open the door to a conversational turn that veers entirely away from any actual discussion of the issue one wanted to illuminate.




Yes, it does provide a shield, one that at least one poster here was using.  However, that being true doesn't mean that presenting an insulting stereotype is okay.  I'm of the opinion that most people can reasonably see the difference between those positions.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, it does provide a shield, one that at least one poster here was using.  However, that being true doesn't mean that presenting an insulting stereotype is okay.  I'm of the opinion that most people can reasonably see the difference between those positions.




At any rate, I don't think we disagree enough to keep diverting the discussion to discuss a diversion of the discussion... (it's just getting way too "meta" at this point).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Max_Killjoy said:


> At any rate, I don't think we disagree enough to keep diverting the discussion to discuss a diversion of the discussion... (it's just getting way to "meta" at this point).




This. Is. The. INTERNET!  Please stop being reasonable.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> *cough* like tone arguments *cough*





Morrus gave a directive.  One person has gotten a tempban.  Another has gotten booted from the thread for disregarding it.

You were told you could have that discussion, just not in this thread.  But, you either cannot, or will not, listen.  You will not leave it alone.  Now, you will leave it alone, for at least a week.  

For everyone: These discussions are allowed, but when one of the staff puts a limit on it, please respect that limit.  Thank you.


----------



## Lord Twig

I very much like the London police policy of believing reports of harassment and taking them seriously, but you will notice that that alone is not enough to take action against the accused person. It allows them to focus their attention on problem areas or check video recordings (if they have them) and so forth. But they don't just arrest the person and throw them in jail without evidence.

Likewise I think in any gaming gathering any reports should be believed and taken seriously, but you can't (or shouldn't) inflict a punishment on the accused just on the word of one person alone. And yes, it is very hard to prove a mumbled sexist statement or prove a grope that no one else saw, but that is true of many crimes. I don't like anyone getting away with a crime, but this is a case where the cure would be worse than the disease.

However I do think it is possible to get evidence in many cases. The apparently common "your character is being raped" scenario should have at least a half dozen witnesses. If truly none of them would come forward to corroborate the harassed person then there are several options depending on the environment.

If it is a private game you don't want to be with them anyway. They are a bunch of jerks, and it's not against the law to be jerks in private.

If it is a store then you have to talk to the owner/management. If the management backs up the jerks then you will need to take your business elsewhere. Other than that a bad Yelp review is about all you can do. Ideally you should be able to report them to the police. But unless they have a policy like London...

Honestly a convention should be the easiest place to get evidence. There are so many people it would be very hard to harass someone for very long without someone noticing the behavior.


----------



## Umbran

Lord Twig said:


> Honestly a convention should be the easiest place to get evidence.




You would think, except we have a whole lot of social inertia and misconceptions that get in the way.



> There are so many people it would be very hard to harass someone for very long without someone noticing the behavior.




This is the good thing about a convention - it's not actually all that big.  While GenCon and ComicCon are huge, most conventions are just a few hundred to a couple of thousand people.  That means tracking reports isn't all that hard.  In the case I spoke of earlier in the thread, where a lady I know got groped, after talking with her, she allowed me to report the incident.  Now, the convention didn't act instantly on my report.  I didn't even know the guy's name, but I had a description.  They put that together with the several other reports they got about the same person, and that established a pattern of behavior, and they permanently banned him from the convention.

Bad actors don't generally restrict themselves to doing only one bad thing for an entire weekend.  Especially if they don't realize that they are getting reported - they *think* they are getting away with it, so they continue, and leave a trail of events.  And that's something the convention can notice.


----------



## DOTTIE

Hussar said:


> In what way did the article not address, in very specific terms, what people can do there and then?  Granted, it wasn't politely phrased, but, she's pretty bloody specific about what she would like to see from the members the hobby - stand up and denounce it, don't turn a blind eye, actively act on complaints and don't just brush them off.
> 
> What more specific things could she be asking for?
> 
> And, really, that's pretty darn good advice.  I mentioned the efforts of the police in London, England to stop harassment on public transportation.  Here's this snippet from their front page:
> 
> 
> 
> Bold and underline is mine.  See, right there, even the police have to state that complaints will be believed.  THAT'S how little faith women have that they will get any justice.  How likely do you think it is that women think that if they make a complaint about harassment at a con or a store, that they will be believed.
> 
> Or, perhaps they will just be blamed for how they dress.  I guess wearing a skirt means that I want my ass grabbed.  It's all my fault.




But in terms of getting someone to address a problem that is happening to someone at a future event, you have to narrow down what you want and entitle people to assess the situation in their own way.  You can't force them to agree with you, or expect them to just create an incident or confrontation in its way, to speak out against someone, just because you said you want them to.


----------



## DOTTIE

Nylanfs said:


> Here's the part that quite a lot of people aren't getting. Women since the second wave feminism started in the 60's *HAVE* been bringing up harassment, talking publicly about it, and asking men to stop. _It keeps happening_, so yes the inflammatory blog was necessary, because women have learned that nothing gets talked about unless white men are insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true we wouldn't *have* to be talking about this.




I concur there are people who won't stop if asked to stop, but there are others who would.  You should be prepared to tell someone who is bothering you they are, and see if they will stop.  They might not even be aware of it.

But what really doesn't make sense to me is when you say nothing gets talked about unless white men are insulted.  I don't think we want to be insulting anyone, just to get attention, and this is kind of saying the article's author is justified to do just that.

You just need to find people who will help, and people who won't hurt you and choose to play with them instead of others you don't trust or who have hurt you before (knowingly).

If you wrongfully accuse someone, and hurt them by getting them embarrassed or asked to leave, or even just given hurt feelings, you are in the wrong then.


----------



## DOTTIE

Max_Killjoy said:


> On the topic of speaking up when you see something, or calling out the harassers, it does come to mind that in online culture -- which overlaps heavily with gaming -- standing up for another person has come to be derided as "white knighting".




It's almost as if desires for retribution are so high all around, that no one wants anyone helping others make a defense.


----------



## Springheel

Lord Twig said:


> The apparently common "your character is being raped" scenario should have at least a half dozen witnesses. If truly none of them would come forward to corroborate the harassed person then there are several options depending on the environment.
> 
> If it is a private game you don't want to be with them anyway. They are a bunch of jerks, and it's not against the law to be jerks in private.
> 
> If it is a store then you have to talk to the owner/management. If the management backs up the jerks then you will need to take your business elsewhere. Other than that a bad Yelp review is about all you can do. _Ideally you should be able to report them to the police._ But unless they have a policy like London...




I agree with a lot of your post.  But just to be clear, you're not suggesting that it should be a crime to include rape scenes in a game, are you?


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Nylanfs said:


> Here's the part that quite a lot of people aren't getting. Women since the second wave feminism started in the 60's *HAVE* been bringing up harassment, talking publicly about it, and asking men to stop. _It keeps happening_, so yes the inflammatory blog was necessary, because women have learned that nothing gets talked about unless white men are insulted.



  Odd, because when I'm insulted for my gender and race (isn't that supposed to be a bad thing?), the last thing I want is to have a "meaningful discussion" with the person insulting me


----------



## Lord Twig

Springheel said:


> I agree with a lot of your post.  But just to be clear, you're not suggesting that it should be a crime to include rape scenes in a game, are you?




Not specifically no. I mention it because it has been brought up that bad actors will use a "rape scene" against a female player's character as a way of trying to force her to "role-play the scene". These incidents are not made to advance a story or anything like that, they are used to try to put the _player_ in a sexual situation. A _violent sexual_ situation.

And honestly there is very little reason to include rape scenes in RPGs, and you certainly don't need to role-play them out. If you don't role-play your character getting mutilated or tortured, why would you role-play rape?

So, sure, in your private game you can do what you want. And there are definitely darker themes that have been explored in books, movies and other media that can be recreated in RPGs if that is what your group wants to do. But in a public place with new players or players you don't know, rape and other dark themes should be avoided.


----------



## Lord Twig

Umbran said:


> This is the good thing about a convention - it's not actually all that big.  While GenCon and ComicCon are huge, most conventions are just a few hundred to a couple of thousand people.  That means tracking reports isn't all that hard.  In the case I spoke of earlier in the thread, where a lady I know got groped, after talking with her, she allowed me to report the incident.  Now, the convention didn't act instantly on my report.  I didn't even know the guy's name, but I had a description.  They put that together with the several other reports they got about the same person, and that established a pattern of behavior, and they permanently banned him from the convention.
> 
> Bad actors don't generally restrict themselves to doing only one bad thing for an entire weekend.  Especially if they don't realize that they are getting reported - they *think* they are getting away with it, so they continue, and leave a trail of events.  And that's something the convention can notice.




And I think this is really the best that can be hoped for. It's terrible that the guy got away with it as long as he did, and more women were harassed as a consequence. But he was caught and thrown out. If this happens enough it might penetrate the social consciousness and deter future occurrences from happening.


----------



## Nylanfs

Max_Killjoy said:


> Odd, because when I'm insulted for my gender and race (isn't that supposed to be a bad thing?), the last thing I want is to have a "meaningful discussion" with the person insulting me




Are you what the author of the blog would call a terrorist, if no then why are you insulted? If you see somebody being harassed, or disturbed by what is going on around them do you politely ask the person doing the offending to stop, if yes why are you insulted?


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Nylanfs said:


> Are you what the author of the blog would call a terrorist, if no then why are you insulted? If you see somebody being harassed, or disturbed by what is going on around them do you politely ask the person doing the offending to stop, if yes why are you insulted?




...



Nylanfs said:


> Here's the part that quite a lot of people aren't getting. Women since the second wave feminism started in the 60's HAVE been bringing up harassment, talking publicly about it, and asking men to stop. It keeps happening, so yes the inflammatory blog was necessary, *because women have learned that nothing gets talked about unless white men are insulted. *




First, stop using the word "terrorist" to mean "person who does bad stuff I don't like".  Language is a scalpel, not a bludgeon.   

Second, the post I was responding to said "insulting white men", not "insulting people who do terrible things that we want to stop".


----------



## tomBitonti

Springheel said:


> I agree with a lot of your post.  But just to be clear, you're not suggesting that it should be a crime to include rape scenes in a game, are you?




I would say, including a rape scene in a public game at game store or in a non-private game at a convention should be clearly against the rules, with rule breakers given warnings then being asked to leave.  Not a crime, but a clear infraction against the rules.  Here non-public game would be any game in a scheduled public event, or a game in a public place.  But not a game in someone's hotel room.

That would not be limited to rape scenes.  There are lots of other cases which I would expect to be similarly treated.

There is a careful issue here: I expect that a store can have whatever policy it wants (or can it?)  Meaning, there is no legal requirement that a store implement these sorts of rules.  That would be an interaction between the store and its patrons.  The above is what I would expect when rules of this sort are in place.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Gradine

Max_Killjoy said:


> ...
> First, stop using the word "terrorist" to mean "person who does bad stuff I don't like".  Language is a scalpel, not a bludgeon.




The author of the article is using "terrorist" to mean "a person who specifically targets members of a group through their actions with either the intent and/or the impact or causing terror that all members of that group are open to be targeted", which is admittedly a bit of a mouthful but is both the actual definition of the word and one that can certainly be applied to some of the bad actors described in the article.

Language is a multi-purpose, multi-faceted tool that can solve many problems in many different ways. Sometimes, as you say, subtlety is called for. Other times, well, some anvils need to be dropped.


----------



## Gradine

tomBitonti said:


> I would say, including a rape scene in a public game at game store or in a non-private game at a convention should be clearly against the rules, with rule breakers given warnings then being asked to leave.  Not a crime, but a clear infraction against the rules.  Here non-public game would be any game in a scheduled public event, or a game in a public place.  But not a game in someone's hotel room.
> 
> That would not be limited to rape scenes.  There are lots of other cases which I would expect to be similarly treated.
> 
> There is a careful issue here: I expect that a store can have whatever policy it wants (or can it?)  Meaning, there is no legal requirement that a store implement these sorts of rules.  That would be an interaction between the store and its patrons.  The above is what I would expect when rules of this sort are in place.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




I feel like this is sensible but difficult if not impossible to enforce. Maybe not at Cons, where play is (theoretically, I've never attended one myself) organized and ground rules can be established at the forefront that apply to all tables.

The FLGS is where I fear change is going to be the most difficult. These stores, if they are anything like the few FLGS's I've encountered, are small, privately owned, with a tight-knit staff that is either going to be receptive to this kind of message or else they will be defensive and intransigent. For a lot of gamers there will little recourse either way; the two "F"LGS's I've patronized were also the only ones in their respective counties, with the next closest being at least an hour's drive away. This is why I do most of my game/comic shopping online now.

I'd been thinking about what game companies themselves can do, and one simple but possibly effective step would be to include language in their game master guide section to the effect of the following:

"<Insert game name here> is ruleset for designing and playing games appropriate for all ages (presumably). However, there is nothing stopping you from introducing mature content into your game. Before do, take a moment to discuss with your players the types of content they would or would not be comfortable encountering in-game. By having this discussion beforehand, you can avoid creating unpleasant situations in the moment of your game."

This wouldn't do a thing to stop any intentionally bad actors but I think (or at least I hope) that a lot of the horror stories you hear about at home games would be resolved ahead of time by encouraging tables to have the "this is what our game is going to be like" conversation in advance. I mean, how many times has a player showed up at a D&D table expecting Tolkein high-fantasy only to find out mid-session that instead their DM is trying to recreate Game of Thrones?


----------



## MechaPilot

Springheel said:


> I agree with a lot of your post.  But just to be clear, you're not suggesting that it should be a crime to include rape scenes in a game, are you?




As someone who was on the receiving end of rape by PC proxy (literally the most frightening, humiliating, degrading, and traumatizing moment in my entire life), I am sorely tempted to say that it should be.  I don't personally see the entertainment value of it (I usually skip movies and series that include rape scenes as well, which is why I'll never get into watching Game of Thrones, or reading the books.  It's also why I was upset about having to watch American History X as part of a humanities class.), and I can't ever think of a time when it actually moved the adventure/campaign story forward.

That said (and I'm grinding my teeth as I type this), as long as people are warned ahead of time what content the game will have (a courtesy I was most certainly NOT offered: I simply would have declined to game with them and kept a wary eye on them in the future if they'd told what I could expect) and they willingly and knowingly consent to be a part of that game, include whatever you like.  It's when there's no warning of what content can be expected, as was the case in what happened to me, that it starts to feel like it should be criminal, because it feels like luring someone into a trap to abuse them for one's own twisted pleasure.


----------



## tomBitonti

Gradine said:


> I feel like this is sensible but difficult if not impossible to enforce. Maybe not at Cons, where play is (theoretically, I've never attended one myself) organized and ground rules can be established at the forefront that apply to all tables.
> 
> The FLGS is where I fear change is going to be the most difficult. These stores, if they are anything like the few FLGS's I've encountered, are small, privately owned, with a tight-knit staff that is either going to be receptive to this kind of message or else they will be defensive and intransigent. For a lot of gamers there will little recourse either way; the two "F"LGS's I've patronized were also the only ones in their respective counties, with the next closest being at least an hour's drive away. This is why I do most of my game/comic shopping online now.
> 
> (text omitted)
> 
> This wouldn't do a thing to stop any unintentionally bad actors but I think (or at least I hope) that a lot of the horror stories you hear about at home games would be resolved ahead of time by encouraging tables to have the "this is what our game is going to be like" conversation in advance. I mean, how many times has a player showed up at a D&D table expecting Tolkein high-fantasy only to find out mid-session that instead their DM is trying to recreate Game of Thrones?




I agree.  Game stores have the more difficult time, in particular, a small store which has a small group of patrons.  The store owner will need to balance their interest in drawing in more customers to providing an environment which works for its patrons.

I have no problem having an up front discussion with groups setting up a game in the store, with a general admonition to be respectful of other patrons.  That goes not just for offensive content, but also for cleanliness, rowdiness, and keeping the game in bounds in both time and space.  Working in a large corporation, this sort of guideline goes without saying.  I like to keep in mind that I prefer to not hear other folks political or social views at work, nor care for humor of various sorts, and find that keeping such out of _public_ and _professional_ spaces is a good policy.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Springheel said:


> I agree with a lot of your post.  But just to be clear, you're not suggesting that it should be a crime to include rape scenes in a game, are you?




Crime?  Probably not. 

As a "surprise"?  Scummy, slimy, disrespectful, low, uncouth, classless, disgusting, vile, rude, inhuman, and so on?  Certainly, and very much so.  If the player(s) involved don't fully agree to it ahead of time, it should never happen.  If even one of the other players will be made uncomfortable by the scene, it should happen away from the main table or not at all.


----------



## Hussar

The thing is, people keep trying to treat this as a criminal issue.  It's not.  Not really.  The rape scene in a game, the racist comment about buying a "noble savage" figure, even the chant of "old enough..." is not something that will involve the police, let alone go to court.  So, why are people trying to treat this like a police procedural where we have to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc?  Good grief, in any other circumstance that would be ludicrous.

Woman goes to a bounce in a bar and says that buddy is harassing her.  What happens?  Bouncer talks to the guy, and possibly ejects him.  There's no interviewing witnesses, reviewing security tapes, or anything like that.  Complaint is made, it's acted upon and end of story.

In a hotel, I tell the manager that the people in the next room are being very loud.  He goes and talks to them.  He doesn't sit outside the room with a microphone and a decibel meter determining if my complaint has merit.  No, he immediately calls the room, and tells them there's been a complaint, could you please keep it down.

Why would this be treated any differently?


----------



## MechaPilot

Hussar said:


> The thing is, people keep trying to treat this as a criminal issue.  It's not.  Not really.  The rape scene in a game, the racist comment about buying a "noble savage" figure, even the chant of "old enough..." is not something that will involve the police, let alone go to court.  So, why are people trying to treat this like a police procedural where we have to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc?  Good grief, in any other circumstance that would be ludicrous.
> 
> Woman goes to a bounce in a bar and says that buddy is harassing her.  What happens?  Bouncer talks to the guy, and possibly ejects him.  There's no interviewing witnesses, reviewing security tapes, or anything like that.  Complaint is made, it's acted upon and end of story.
> 
> In a hotel, I tell the manager that the people in the next room are being very loud.  He goes and talks to them.  He doesn't sit outside the room with a microphone and a decibel meter determining if my complaint has merit.  No, he immediately calls the room, and tells them there's been a complaint, could you please keep it down.
> 
> Why would this be treated any differently?




Some of it is a criminal issue because certain criminal acts (groping, making threats, rape, etc.) fall under the general umbrella of harassment of women in gaming.  The non-criminal harassment is not a criminal issue (I mean, that goes without saying, but I wanted to be clear about it), but some seem to want criminal standards of innocence to apply to all varieties of harassment when the various civil standard are far more relevant.

In tax, there are several non-criminal standards: "reasonable basis" (a roughly 20% chance of being upheld on its merits), "substantial authority" (a one in three chance of being upheld on its merits), and "more likely than not" or "preponderance of the evidence" (a greater than 50% chance of being upheld on its merits).  These standards are allowed to be lower than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which despite public myth does not mean beyond "all" doubt) because meeting them doesn't result in depriving someone of their freedom, or executing them.  They simply result in paying fines, or loss of money/property which, by their very nature, are replaceable where life and freedom are not.  If any legal standard is to be applied, which is a discussion of its own, it really should be one of these civil standards and not the criminal standard.


----------



## LordEntrails

Hussar said:


> ...
> 
> Woman goes to a bounce in a bar and says that buddy is harassing her.  What happens?  Bouncer talks to the guy, and possibly ejects him.  There's no interviewing witnesses, reviewing security tapes, or anything like that.  Complaint is made, it's acted upon and end of story.
> 
> In a hotel, I tell the manager that the people in the next room are being very loud.  He goes and talks to them.  He doesn't sit outside the room with a microphone and a decibel meter determining if my complaint has merit.  No, he immediately calls the room, and tells them there's been a complaint, could you please keep it down.
> 
> Why would this be treated any differently?




Problem is, a lot of bouncers and hotel managers won't act. A lot of con staff and store managers and owners won't act either. They should, but they don't.

Note, I'm not saying it should be treated any differently from those instances. Just thatthose instances aren't always handled successfully either.


----------



## Jester David

Hussar said:


> The thing is, people keep trying to treat this as a criminal issue.  It's not.  Not really.  The rape scene in a game, the racist comment about buying a "noble savage" figure, even the chant of "old enough..." is not something that will involve the police, let alone go to court.  So, why are people trying to treat this like a police procedural where we have to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc?  Good grief, in any other circumstance that would be ludicrous.



It totally is not a crime. 

Until it is. 

It really depends on motive. Once the rape scene becomes a threat, once actual rape is being implied and people feel endangered and not just uncomfortable, then it crosses a line. 
Until then it's just in poor taste. One of the many, many, many topics its probably just not cool to have occur at the game table unless everyone is explicitly onboard. Like child endangerment, incest, infanticide, bestiality, lynchings, and many other topics. There's some real sick, sick  that happens in the world, but we really don't need them at the game table. Rape can join that list.


----------



## Rygar

Hussar said:


> The thing is, people keep trying to treat this as a criminal issue.  It's not.  Not really.  The rape scene in a game, the racist comment about buying a "noble savage" figure, even the chant of "old enough..." is not something that will involve the police, let alone go to court.  So, why are people trying to treat this like a police procedural where we have to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc?  Good grief, in any other circumstance that would be ludicrous.
> 
> Woman goes to a bounce in a bar and says that buddy is harassing her.  What happens?  Bouncer talks to the guy, and possibly ejects him.  There's no interviewing witnesses, reviewing security tapes, or anything like that.  Complaint is made, it's acted upon and end of story.
> 
> In a hotel, I tell the manager that the people in the next room are being very loud.  He goes and talks to them.  He doesn't sit outside the room with a microphone and a decibel meter determining if my complaint has merit.  No, he immediately calls the room, and tells them there's been a complaint, could you please keep it down.
> 
> Why would this be treated any differently?




Actually,  this topic can lead to court proceedings.  Reference the Honey Badgers at a con last year,  with the presenters permission they answered a question respectfully from an opposing point of view to the presenter,  and a bit later were ejected from the Con for "Harassment".  There is video evidence and they are sueing the con.  

It would be great if this were still a normal situation like you describe,  but over the past year it has become a weapon to be wielded against those who hold opposing views and has been used numerous times in efforts to attempt to eject people from cons or prevent them from even attending.


----------



## Deset Gled

Rygar said:


> Actually,  this topic can lead to court proceedings.  ...  There is video evidence and they are sueing the con.




To be pedantic, that's still not a criminal issue.  It's a civil one.  Different in many ways, including that the burden of proof in civil court is a "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt".  I believe Hussar's point is that some people are using the latter standard in a case that calls for the former.


----------



## Fergurg

-delete-


----------



## Fergurg

-delete-


----------



## DOTTIE

Hussar said:


> The thing is, people keep trying to treat this as a criminal issue.  It's not.  Not really.  The rape scene in a game, the racist comment about buying a "noble savage" figure, even the chant of "old enough..." is not something that will involve the police, let alone go to court.  So, why are people trying to treat this like a police procedural where we have to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc?  Good grief, in any other circumstance that would be ludicrous.
> 
> Woman goes to a bounce in a bar and says that buddy is harassing her.  What happens?  Bouncer talks to the guy, and possibly ejects him.  There's no interviewing witnesses, reviewing security tapes, or anything like that.  Complaint is made, it's acted upon and end of story.
> 
> In a hotel, I tell the manager that the people in the next room are being very loud.  He goes and talks to them.  He doesn't sit outside the room with a microphone and a decibel meter determining if my complaint has merit.  No, he immediately calls the room, and tells them there's been a complaint, could you please keep it down.
> 
> Why would this be treated any differently?




You should generally want to avoid involving police, unless you absolutely need 9-1-1.  The police are not on your side.  The public has this misconception that they are, but they are really out to keep the peace.  If you are too upset, and riling people up about anything, whatever the issue, they might see you as a problem and at the least what may happen is they will be that much harder for you to persuade to help or believe you.  Some police are cruel people who will abuse their authority.


----------



## Sadras

How much of an issue is harassment within our gaming community? Do we believe that harassment is more prevalent within our gaming community than in general? If the answer to the second question is a yes, I would seriously be surprised, because generally I think guys are guys everywhere. I get the 'boys club mentality, I imagine there was a similar reaction when women started joining golf clubs. The harassment issue is foreign to me, but I'm thinking it might be more prevalent (besides the points raised by @_*MechaPilot*_ previously) due to the 'safety' of the boys club, I'm guessing, which is pretty pathetic.

I understand the occasional gawking, a few turn-back looks...etc are the norm, but the groping, overly sexual passes and rape threats and the like are way past point of comfortable. I'm hoping the harassment issue goes the way of the dodo as the demographic of our community changes as I expect it would. Many of us are bringing wives, girlfriends, daughters and their friends into the hobby so it can only but change.


----------



## Hussar

Rygar said:


> Actually,  this topic can lead to court proceedings.  Reference the Honey Badgers at a con last year,  with the presenters permission they answered a question respectfully from an opposing point of view to the presenter,  and a bit later were ejected from the Con for "Harassment".  There is video evidence and they are sueing the con.
> 
> It would be great if this were still a normal situation like you describe,  but over the past year it has become a weapon to be wielded against those who hold opposing views and has been used numerous times in efforts to attempt to eject people from cons or prevent them from even attending.




No, it really, really hasn't.  A lone case of harassment being misapplied (I am not familiar with this specific case, so, I'll just assume that it is) does not mean that harassment is now being used as a weapon to eject people.  

Until you can show me a list of repeated offences where harassment laws are being used as a weapon over a period of time, I'm going to side with the angels here and not worry over much about outliers.


----------



## tomBitonti

The Honey Badgers case doesn't seem to be about harassment, but rather, about the convention ejecting the group.  The convention claimed harassment complaints, and seem to have used those as a basic for ejecting the group.  The group claims discrimination based on their political views, which is a protected category in Canada.

The case does seem to be an example showing that harassment claims can be used to cause civil harm.  That is, depending on the particulars of the case, which are uncertain.  (I tried to find information about the case, but didn't find a lot that I can rely on.)

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Max_Killjoy

tomBitonti said:


> The Honey Badgers case doesn't seem to be about harassment, but rather, about the convention ejecting the group.  The convention claimed harassment complaints, and seem to have used those as a basic for ejecting the group.  The group claims discrimination based on their political views, which is a protected category in Canada.
> 
> The case does seem to be an example showing that harassment claims can be used to cause civil harm.  That is, depending on the particulars of the case, which are uncertain.  (I tried to find information about the case, but didn't find a lot that I can rely on.)
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




The amount of spin online for that incident is pretty dizzying... 

http://www.themarysue.com/calgary-expo-gamergate-evicted/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/behind-calgary-comic-cons-freeze-out-of-the-honey-badger-brigade/
https://supernerdland.com/welcome-t...e-opinions-unwelcome-the-honey-badger-affair/
http://kotaku.com/gamergate-booth-kicked-out-of-canadian-comic-expo-1698538297


----------



## Mallus

Max_Killjoy said:


> The amount of spin online for that incident is pretty dizzying...



FYI... there's a pretty good article about the Honey Badgers on Vice. It's... interesting, and by no means a hatchet job. They sound like a fascinating group -- I mean, they're _female_ MRA's for gods sake --  but I gotta editorialize a bit: there are better ways to critique 3rd wave feminism as practiced online than by hitching your wagon to men's right's activists, the pick-up artists community, and Gamergate. 

Lots of ways.

Like a ton. 

Really.

The path to a more egalitarian feminism doesn't lie through a bunch of bitter, resentful, presumably unsuccessful because their so bitter & resentful, not to mention complain-y guys online. But I guess the Internet makes for strange bedfellows.


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> The thing is, people keep trying to treat this as a criminal issue.  It's not.  Not really.  The rape scene in a game, the racist comment about buying a "noble savage" figure, even the chant of "old enough..." is not something that will involve the police, let alone go to court.  So, why are people trying to treat this like a police procedural where we have to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc?  Good grief, in any other circumstance that would be ludicrous.
> 
> In a hotel, I tell the manager that the people in the next room are being very loud.  He goes and talks to them.  He doesn't sit outside the room with a microphone and a decibel meter determining if my complaint has merit.  No, he immediately calls the room, and tells them there's been a complaint, could you please keep it down.
> 
> Why would this be treated any differently?




The difference comes down to the consequences involved.  In the case of a single noise complaint, there is no real consequence, so it's not particularly important to ensure that the complaint is genuine.  If the complaint would result in the person being evicted from their room, then it becomes more important for those enforcing the consequence to make sure there is a solid reason to do so.


----------



## Springheel

tomBitonti said:


> The case does seem to be an example showing that harassment claims can be used to cause civil harm.  That is, depending on the particulars of the case, which are uncertain.  (I tried to find information about the case, but didn't find a lot that I can rely on.)




There's also the Gregory Elliott case, which was specifically about using anti-harassment laws as a weapon against someone.  He was recently found innocent, but not until after losing his job and spending 3 years banned from using a phone or the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

There are also well documented cases of people being wrongfully convicted of theft, rape, murder and everything else, sometimes accidentally, sometimes as part of a deliberate attempt to deflect suspicion from the actual criminals or even just to harm someone.  It is an unfortunate and unavoidable part of the legal system.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> The difference comes down to the consequences involved.  In the case of a single noise complaint, there is no real consequence, so it's not particularly important to ensure that the complaint is genuine.  If the complaint would result in the person being evicted from their room, then it becomes more important for those enforcing the consequence to make sure there is a solid reason to do so.




Who's saying a single harassment complaint would automatically result in someone being ejected from a convention?  That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?  The consequences for the vast majority of harassment complaints are exactly the same as a single noise complaint - the manager comes, tells the person to stop doing whatever is causing the complaint and, assuming no further complaints, that's the end of the story.

Someone telling dick jokes, playing out rape scenarios, leering, jeering, and various other forms of harassment are best handled in exactly the same way.  Which is the point of this entire thread - that no one is stepping up and acting.  Complaints are being ignored.  Complaints are being treated like some sort of bizarre role play scenario where the managers should act like CSI investigators.  Complaints are being treated as always suspect because they might be weaponised against some poor schmuck.


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> Who's saying a single harassment complaint would automatically result in someone being ejected from a convention?  That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?




I wasn't suggesting that either.



> Someone telling dick jokes, playing out rape scenarios, leering, jeering, and various other forms of harassment are best handled in exactly the same way.  Which is the point of this entire thread - that no one is stepping up and acting.  Complaints are being ignored.  Complaints are being treated like some sort of bizarre role play scenario where the managers should act like CSI investigators.  Complaints are being treated as always suspect because they might be weaponised against some poor schmuck.




It might help if we're clearer about what kind of complaints and consequences we're actually talking about then.  Someone making a dick joke is a far cry from someone being groped, and talking about both interchangeably is bound to lead to confusion (not saying you were, but rude comments and physical assault have both been conflated regularly in this thread).


----------



## MechaPilot

Springheel said:


> It might help if we're clearer about what kind of complaints and consequences we're actually talking about then.  Someone making a dick joke is a far cry from someone being groped, and talking about both interchangeably is bound to lead to confusion (not saying you were, but rude comments and physical assault have both been conflated regularly in this thread).




I haven't seen them conflated (not that I recall the contents of every post in this thread), but I do feel it's worth mentioning that they are related in that there is a general sphere of harassment that includes both criminal harassment (groping, threats, rape, etc) and non-criminal harassment (PC rape, cat-calling, etc).  Any addressing of harassment in general should be geared toward both the criminal and non-criminal types, though different approaches will likely be needed for the two different types, and it doesn't do any harm to discuss approaches to each type of harassment (i.e. criminal and non-criminal) separately.  Again though, we should bear in mind that they are related in that they both exist within the general cloud of harassment that is faced.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> I wasn't suggesting that either.
> 
> 
> 
> It might help if we're clearer about what kind of complaints and consequences we're actually talking about then.  Someone making a dick joke is a far cry from someone being groped, and talking about both interchangeably is bound to lead to confusion (not saying you were, but rude comments and physical assault have both been conflated regularly in this thread).




I'd argue that the conflation has been largely one sided - we should investigate every complaint and determine to criminal law levels whether or not it should be acted upon.  I've repeatedly tried to argue that the majority of harassment cases aren't criminal.  Even the ones in the original blog post have several that would never be considered criminal acts.  So, when people talk about harassment policies being weaponized to silence people, the presumption is that most complaints will result in severe penalties.  Thing is, most won't.  The overwhelming majority of cases will be handled quietly and with a minimum of fuss.

Heck, even the guy whispering inappropriate things in the ear of a cosplayer would never involve criminal charges.  There's just no way it realistically could.  However, the basic presumption should be that when the woman makes that complaint, it will be acted upon.  And another basic presumption should be that any behaviour like this, in our hobby, in public, would be publicly and quickly dealt with by the people around.  That by remaining silent, by not wanting to get involved, by assuming it's someone else's problem, we are all contributing to the problem.

So, in the end, what do we do, as a community, to deal with it?  Well, part of it has to be education.  That's a given.  Harassment, like bullying, has to be talked about.  Threads like this are a very good thing.  Raise awareness.  Make people realize that their actions do, actually, hurt others and hurt the hobby.  Hey, I'm all about the well phrased dick joke.  Our last D&D session invented the term "gargloryhole", so it's not like I'm saying that the humour can't circle the potty.    But, OTOH, I'm playing in an online game, over Skype with everyone on headphones.  The only people we could offend are each other.  Making those same jokes in an FLGS or a Con is not a good idea.  And people need to learn that it isn't a good idea.

The guy who body shamed gamers with that photo spread got banned for 18 months.  And, really, good.  That's precisely the reaction that should happen.  Sure, I thought it was kinda funny too, but, really, no, it isn't.  And, the fact that people complained and this guy got banned raises awareness.  The next time I see someone posting those kinds of pictures, I'm a whole lot less likely to laugh about it.  Because, really, it's not funny.  It's harassment pure and simple.  And instead of laughing about it, the reaction should be one of condemnation.


----------



## LordEntrails

Hussar said:


> ...
> 
> So, in the end, what do we do, as a community, to deal with it?  Well, part of it has to be education.  That's a given.  Harassment, like bullying, has to be talked about.  Threads like this are a very good thing.  Raise awareness.  Make people realize that their actions do, actually, hurt others and hurt the hobby.  ....




The answer to that question a couple hundred of posts ago was that it was all about raising awareness.

But I doubt this thread is doing that. At least not anymore. Those people who need to be made aware of this issue probably dropped out of following this thread 5 or 6 hundred posts ago.


----------



## DOTTIE

Sadras said:


> How much of an issue is harassment within our gaming community? Do we believe that harassment is more prevalent within our gaming community than in general? If the answer to the second question is a yes, I would seriously be surprised, because generally I think guys are guys everywhere. I get the 'boys club mentality, I imagine there was a similar reaction when women started joining golf clubs. The harassment issue is foreign to me, but I'm thinking it might be more prevalent (besides the points raised by @_*MechaPilot*_ previously) due to the 'safety' of the boys club, I'm guessing, which is pretty pathetic.
> 
> I understand the occasional gawking, a few turn-back looks...etc are the norm, but the groping, overly sexual passes and rape threats and the like are way past point of comfortable. I'm hoping the harassment issue goes the way of the dodo as the demographic of our community changes as I expect it would. Many of us are bringing wives, girlfriends, daughters and their friends into the hobby so it can only but change.




Gaming is by and large free of harassment of any kind.  I'd say it has much less of a problem than an average place.


----------



## Morrus

DOTTIE said:


> Gaming is by and large free of harassment of any kind.  I'd say it has much less of a problem than an average place.




No, it's not.  As evidenced by all the people who have been harassed. Hell, even I have (online version) recieved threats to the point where police were informed, although I obviously don't consider myself part of a demographic for whom it's endemic. I've had to ban people from this very site for harassing behaviour on multiple occasions.  Free of harassment, it is most certainly  not.


----------



## DOTTIE

Hussar said:


> Who's saying a single harassment complaint would automatically result in someone being ejected from a convention?  That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?  The consequences for the vast majority of harassment complaints are exactly the same as a single noise complaint - the manager comes, tells the person to stop doing whatever is causing the complaint and, assuming no further complaints, that's the end of the story.
> 
> Someone telling dick jokes, playing out rape scenarios, leering, jeering, and various other forms of harassment are best handled in exactly the same way.  Which is the point of this entire thread - that no one is stepping up and acting.  Complaints are being ignored.  Complaints are being treated like some sort of bizarre role play scenario where the managers should act like CSI investigators.  Complaints are being treated as always suspect because they might be weaponised against some poor schmuck.




It's questionable whether any of those things are harassment even if they were recorded.

You can't say that someone else's choice of words, body language, or taste in humor, is a personal attack just because it could be or you find it offensive no matter what.  Offense is not the same thing as harassment.


----------



## DOTTIE

Morrus said:


> No, it's not.  As evidenced by all the people who have been harassed. Hell, even I have (online version) recieved threats to the point where police were informed, although I obviously don't consider myself part of a demographic for whom it's endemic. I've had to ban people from this very site for harassing behaviour on multiple occasions.  Free of harassment, it is most certainly  not.




I accept it's there, but I think it's still a much safer atmosphere than say a bar or a in terms of the Internet, something like twitter or facebook.  Your website is far safer, or free of bad language, etc.  Most people posting seem sympathetic to anyone being harassed.


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> I'd argue that the conflation has been largely one sided - we should investigate every complaint and determine to criminal law levels whether or not it should be acted upon.




I've seen it on both sides, but I think in many cases it's unintentional.  One person posts about groping, another posts something about rape threats, another posts about people feeling offended, and in a busy thread like this it quickly becomes confusing which reply is to which problem.



> However, the basic presumption should be that when the woman makes that complaint, it will be acted upon.




I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  Where we might find disagreement is over what the action should be.  That's why I'm in favour of clear policies for behaviour.  Otherwise, you potentially wind up dealing with opposing subjective feelings.  One person "feels" behaviour X is acceptable and one "feels" it is not.  Clear rules would certainly help in that case.  In some cases, the law itself provides the policy--groping people is a pretty clear-cut case.  When you get into the realm of what is "offensive", it is much murkier.  Are groups allowed to make dick jokes at their own table or not?  Are people allowed to wear revealing cosplay outfits or not?  Are people allowed to wear t-shirts with political slogans or not?  Without clear policies, the answers to these questions would be different depending on who you ask.




> And another basic presumption should be that any behaviour like this, in our hobby, in public, would be publicly and quickly dealt with by the people around.  That by remaining silent, by not wanting to get involved, by assuming it's someone else's problem, we are all contributing to the problem.




Well, again, that relates to what I said above.  While it's obvious you shouldn't condone someone being groped or threatened, should you intervene if you pass a table and hear someone make a dick joke?  Should you confront the two strangers whose heads swivel to watch a scantily-clad cosplayer walk by?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I don't like zero tolerance Becuse it always leads to crazy over enforcing or having to ignore things not to get there and then real issues call through the cracks.

Every report of harassment should be handled with care and quickly, maybe with a "hey appolgice and knock it off" and maybe with a 911 call but mostly with the hundred or so options in between.


----------



## billd91

Springheel said:


> There's also the Gregory Elliott case, which was specifically about using anti-harassment laws as a weapon against someone.  He was recently found innocent, but not until after losing his job and spending 3 years banned from using a phone or the internet.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott




Well, let's just say the charges were dropped. That's not the same as being innocent of harassment since feeling threatened is a function of the person who is the target of the contact - and different people may have different views of what's a reasonable fear. Apparently the judge's assessment was different from the plaintiff's.


----------



## Rottle

billd91 said:


> Well, let's just say the charges were dropped. That's not the same as being innocent of harassment since feeling threatened is a function of the person who is the target of the contact - and different people may have different views of what's a reasonable fear. Apparently the judge's assessment was different from the plaintiff's.




In this case though it really does.  The judge and officers found no evidence of threats of harm to any women in question.  

Look you cannot simply say we each get to define harassment for ourselves in a legal situation.  I think we have to accept you can "feel harassed" and not actually be legally harassed.  Either way a judge or jury makes that call and when they do I don't feel you can claim a person isn't innocent of the crime of harassment when the court says he is not guilty.  

I am all for anti harassment laws and their enforcement.  It is regrettable and unfortunate that some innocents will be accused have damage done to their lives.  Harassment in many cases is not like say robbery, it's more difficult to prove or disprove I suppose but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  I do think the state or the accuser has to pay in some cases for the damage done to a persons life when they are found not guilty.  If the state was overzealous and took a case far too weak to court, or if the accuser lied or contrived to damage someone with their false accusation.  But sometimes it will just be harassment but not legally harassment.   

Look at the damage done to the duke lacrosse team when they were falsely accused, it's regrettable that it might and likely will happen to someone but that doesn't mean for society it isn't the right thing to make laws to protect people from harassment.  We just have to as a society let the courts do their jobs and not assume guilt just because accusations are made.  And yes the courts too will get things wrong, it unfortunate.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> Well, let's just say the charges were dropped. That's not the same as being innocent of harassment since feeling threatened is a function of the person who is the target of the contact - and different people may have different views of what's a reasonable fear. Apparently the judge's assessment was different from the plaintiff's.




Bill, in the US, "innocent until proven guilty," is still the way it goes.  If the case wasn't enough to prove him guilty, that's how we have to take it.  We were not in the courtroom


----------



## Abstruse

Rottle said:


> In this case though it really does.  The judge and officers found no evidence of threats of harm to any women in question.




I love it when women claim to be harassed, dozens if not hundreds and, if you take all the responses to the original Tumblr post, possibly thousands of women coming forward...

...yet people still feel the need to point out the one or two cases of "false charges" as if it makes the harassment problem go away.

I just ate lunch. Why are all these people complaining about world hunger?


----------



## Rottle

Abstruse said:


> I love it when women claim to be harassed, dozens if not hundreds and, if you take all the responses to the original Tumblr post, possibly thousands of women coming forward...
> 
> ...yet people still feel the need to point out the one or two cases of "false charges" as if it makes the harassment problem go away.
> 
> I just ate lunch. Why are all these people complaining about world hunger?






Why don't you think we need anti harassment laws?  Or do you believe once accused by default guilty even when the court finds them not guilty?


----------



## Abstruse

Rottle said:


> Why don't you think we need anti harassment laws?  Or do you believe once accused by default guilty even when the court finds them not guilty?




Wow, way to turn that one around. Considering I was one of the early voices for boycotting any convention that didn't have a harassment policy in place, I find this amusing.

My point is that, the moment women start talking about their personal experiences with harassment, men pop up immediately to point out the few cases of false accusations as if the dozen annual cases of false accusations wipes away the hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases of real harassment. Funnily enough, it's almost always preceded by statements like "I don't condone harassment, but--" which sounds to me a lot like "I'm not racist, but--"


----------



## Rottle

Abstruse said:


> Wow, way to turn that one around. Considering I was one of the early voices for boycotting any convention that didn't have a harassment policy in place, I find this amusing.
> 
> My point is that, the moment women start talking about their personal experiences with harassment, men pop up immediately to point out the few cases of false accusations as if the dozen annual cases of false accusations wipes away the hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases of real harassment. Funnily enough, it's almost always preceded by statements like "I don't condone harassment, but--" which sounds to me a lot like "I'm not racist, but--"




Way to miss my point ..twice.

First point of my post was about how if the court find him not guilty he is innocent.  

Second part was while a few bad cases will appear it doesn't mean we shouldn't still have the laws and enforce them.   

My second post was made in hopes you would actually reread my first one.....

I will attempt to be more clear in the future.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> Bill, in the US, "innocent until proven guilty," is still the way it goes.  If the case wasn't enough to prove him guilty, that's how we have to take it.  We were not in the courtroom




From a legal standpoint, sure. But *we* don't have to simply because charges were dropped or the accused was acquitted, nor are those necessarily indicative of the truth of the situation.


----------



## Janx

Maggan said:


> I feel that the post linked in the thread start is important. To me it is important to read accounts like this, regardless of tone.
> 
> Because I am not the target of the described behaviour, I need other people to explain to me what it looks like, what it feels like and what the consequences are. If strong language is involved, so be it. I need to learn more to make sure I don't inadvertantly enable the behaviour described.
> 
> Being more aware of this will not detract from my enjoyment of this hobby, and might enhance the enjoyment others get out if it. A win-win situation for me.
> 
> /Maggan




I'm a zillion posts late to the game, but I think Maggan gets it.

Good listening skills involves detecting what the actual message is, and giving benefit of the doubt.  The author of the article's point is that women are being harrassed and worse.  I could give a rat's arse about who doesn't like chainmail bikini art.  it's art on a piece of paper that you choose to buy or look at or not.  But getting spoken to in a disrespectful manner or groped or worse is flat out wrong.

I have often wondered (in the offtopic forum even) why the good people of Iraq and Afghanistan put up with the  bad guys over there.  Surely they too can chop people's heads off and light things on fire, just aimed at the bad guys.  But it never works out that way.  That's why the KKK is happy to burn a cross on Danny's lawn, but nobody tars and feathers a skin head and drags him down main street.

Same problem with bad behavior at cons and game shops.  We don't notice it or get involved to stop it or call it out and make a scene.

Here's a story that happened to me last week.  Not as bad as what this author talks about, but I am ashamed to say I didn't say something.  I was on Xbox live, in a party of mixed individuals in a game.  Meaning we each knew somebody else, but not everybody knew everbody.  Some kid spouts out "Die Jew" and later "KKK" while playing.  It happened pretty quick, and I didn't say anything.  I should have.

I am certain, that we (all of us, male, female, other, reptiles, whites, blacks, Sleestak, etc) do not notice things and do not stop to get involved when we think we might be noticing something.  I don't know what it is.  Probably social pressure to not make a scene, etc.  But we gotta fight it and stand up for anybody getting hurt.  Everytime.

That might make a scene.  That might even start a fight.  But Nathaniel Hale once said, "my only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country."  Maybe we all need to take a hint and stick out neck out for our fellow human beings, regardless of the risk.  Because Evil wins every time Good stands by and does nothing.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> But *we* don't have to simply because charges were dropped or the accused was acquitted




Actually, we kinda do.  Continued insinuation that he's guilty would likely amount to defamation - slander or libel, depending on the form.  



> ...nor are those necessarily indicative of the truth of the situation.




I see.  And you, who I presume were *not* in the courtroom, *not* presented with the evidence, testimony or arguments, have a better handle on the "truth" of the situation?  Really?  

This is not to say that the court got it right.  Courts make mistakes, sure.  But the judgement of persons who were not privy to the evidence isn't what I'd call reliable, either.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

billd91 said:


> From a legal standpoint, sure. But *we* don't have to simply because charges were dropped or the accused was acquitted, nor are those necessarily indicative of the truth of the situation.




Which *sounds* like you're saying that "the court of public opinion" trumps the actual courts...


----------



## Springheel

> ...yet people still feel the need to point out the one or two cases of "false charges"_ as if it makes the harassment problem go away_.




And who is doing that, exactly?

Nuance is actually a thing.  It's possible to be aware of a problem and at the same time prefer a solution that is not easily abused.


----------



## Umbran

Springheel said:


> Nuance is actually a thing.  It's possible to be aware of a problem and at the same time prefer a solution that is not easily abused.




There is no indication that it is "easily" abused.  A couple of known cases do not a pattern of easy abuse make.  

It also seems a little odd, in that this isn't actually an issue of harassment, but a basic innate characteristic of the justice system - it is not perfect.  Yes, you can get false accusations of harassment.  You can also have them for _any and every other crime_.  But I'm not hearing calls to tear down the justice system.  For all those other things, the failures of the system are an acceptable risk, but not for this?  

That doesn't sound even-handed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> There is no indication that it is "easily" abused.  A couple of known cases do not a pattern of easy abuse make.
> 
> It also seems a little odd, in that this isn't actually an issue of harassment, but a basic innate characteristic of the justice system - it is not perfect.  Yes, you can get false accusations of harassment.  You can also have them for _any and every other crime_.  But I'm not hearing calls to tear down the justice system.  For all those other things, the failures of the system are an acceptable risk, but not for this?
> 
> That doesn't sound even-handed.




Hence my post:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are also well documented cases of people being wrongfully convicted of theft, rape, murder and everything else, sometimes accidentally, sometimes as part of a deliberate attempt to deflect suspicion from the actual criminals or even just to harm someone.  It is an unfortunate and unavoidable part of the legal system.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Blackstone's Formulation.

Be careful that the cure isn't more toxic than the disease.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Max_Killjoy said:


> Blackstone's Formulation.




Certainly, but even so, Blackstone's formulation has limits.  Rhetorically, he chose a 10:1 ratio.  If pressed, he might have relented to a 20:1 ratio.  But would he go for 100:1 or 1000:1?  At some point, he would be forced to accept a certain number of innocents will be harmed by a judicial/penal sytem, no matter how good, because there are all aspects of administering it are subject to human error.

In economics, we talk about the optimum level of criminal behavior or evil.  At some point, the economic and social costs of combatting any given form of injustice are higher than benefits society, or even the individual harmed by the injustice.


----------



## Hussar

DOTTIE said:


> It's questionable whether any of those things are harassment even if they were recorded.
> 
> You can't say that someone else's choice of words, body language, or taste in humor, is a personal attack just because it could be or you find it offensive no matter what.  Offense is not the same thing as harassment.




Sorry, but, you don't get to tell other people when they have or have not been harassed.  That's not how it works.  See, to me, this is precisely the problem that this whole thread is about.  That complaints are simply dismissed or ignored by the majority.



DOTTIE said:


> I accept it's there, but I think it's still a much safer atmosphere than say a bar or a in terms of the Internet, something like twitter or facebook.  Your website is far safer, or free of bad language, etc.  Most people posting seem sympathetic to anyone being harassed.




Why?  Why is En World a safer atmosphere than other Internet forums?  Is it because we're gamers and we're nicer people?  Not bloody likely.  It's because all complaints are treated seriously and the mods here are extremely active in shutting down bad behaviour.

IOW, to get that safe environment requires active responses and not just turning a blind eye and hoping for the best.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> I've seen it on both sides, but I think in many cases it's unintentional.  One person posts about groping, another posts something about rape threats, another posts about people feeling offended, and in a busy thread like this it quickly becomes confusing which reply is to which problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone would disagree with that.  Where we might find disagreement is over what the action should be.  That's why I'm in favour of clear policies for behaviour.  Otherwise, you potentially wind up dealing with opposing subjective feelings.  One person "feels" behaviour X is acceptable and one "feels" it is not.  Clear rules would certainly help in that case.  In some cases, the law itself provides the policy--groping people is a pretty clear-cut case.  When you get into the realm of what is "offensive", it is much murkier.  Are groups allowed to make dick jokes at their own table or not?  Are people allowed to wear revealing cosplay outfits or not?  Are people allowed to wear t-shirts with political slogans or not?  Without clear policies, the answers to these questions would be different depending on who you ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, that relates to what I said above.  While it's obvious you shouldn't condone someone being groped or threatened, should you intervene if you pass a table and hear someone make a dick joke?  Should you confront the two strangers whose heads swivel to watch a scantily-clad cosplayer walk by?




Yes, you probably should.  At least the dick joke one.  Is it appropriate for a venue that includes children?  Not really.  Did I come here to listen to you tell dick jokes (thus the difference between going to a Con and a comedy club)?  Probably not.  So, yeah, if people are being rude and obnoxious, then yes, as a community we should step in.  And, even further, when someone does complain, those complaints should be treated as valid and action should be taken.  Put it another way, if someone complains to you about you telling dick jokes, how should you respond?  If someone complains to the management about dick jokes, how should you, as management, respond?


----------



## DOTTIE

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Certainly, but even so, Blackstone's formulation has limits.  Rhetorically, he chose a 10:1 ratio.  If pressed, he might have relented to a 20:1 ratio.  But would he go for 100:1 or 1000:1?  At some point, he would be forced to accept a certain number of innocents will be harmed by a judicial/penal sytem, no matter how good, because there are all aspects of administering it are subject to human error.
> 
> In economics, we talk about the optimum level of criminal behavior or evil.  At some point, the economic and social costs of combatting any given form of injustice are higher than benefits society, or even the individual harmed by the injustice.




That is the end result of careful investigation and trial, and it still goes bad.  No one should be advocating for penalties without any investigation or trial.


----------



## MechaPilot

DOTTIE said:


> That is the end result of careful investigation and trial, and it still goes bad.  No one should be advocating for penalties without any investigation or trial.




For criminal penalties?  I agree.

However, the penalty of being pulled aside by a store owner or convention staff and asked to stop X offensive behavior with the understanding that if you do not you may face more significant penalties, including an expulsion or a permanent ban?  No.  If you believe you are wronged if and when you receive those more significant penalties, you still have the option of litigation to remedy that wrong.

No one is saying someone should go to jail or prison without a trial.  I think most people aren't even saying that someone should be ejected immediately from a store or con upon their first non-criminal offense.  However, if a person receives multiple complaints about harassing behavior, then the store or con should have the right to eject or ban that person without going to civil court, or without holding a mock court of their own.


----------



## DOTTIE

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, you don't get to tell other people when they have or have not been harassed.  That's not how it works.  See, to me, this is precisely the problem that this whole thread is about.  That complaints are simply dismissed or ignored by the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Why is En World a safer atmosphere than other Internet forums?  Is it because we're gamers and we're nicer people?  Not bloody likely.  It's because all complaints are treated seriously and the mods here are extremely active in shutting down bad behaviour.
> 
> IOW, to get that safe environment requires active responses and not just turning a blind eye and hoping for the best.




It's not at issue whether you feel you are being harassed.  What matters is the grounds you show for someone to think it's been done intentionally to you as harassment, and not by coincidence.  If you are offended by people talking at a table, for instance, even if it went against the policy of the venue what they were talking about, if they don't even know you're there listening how could you show they are harassing you?


----------



## MechaPilot

DOTTIE said:


> It's not at issue whether you feel you are being harassed.  What matters is the grounds you show for someone to think it's been done intentionally to you as harassment, and not by coincidence.  If you are offended by people talking at a table, for instance, even if it went against the policy of the venue what they were talking about, if they don't even know you're there listening how could you show they are harassing you?




Harassment does not have to be intentional.  Surely, there are some who think referring to the new female hire as the "new hot piece of _____" is either appropriate or even complimentary.  Their intention means jack if their actions create a hostile environment.

Likewise, in the example you just posted, the complaint of harassment would not require any proof of intent to harass to take action on it.  Those who run the venue should take action simply based on the reported behavior being a violation of venue policy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> For criminal penalties?  I agree.
> 
> However, the penalty of being pulled aside by a store owner or convention staff and asked to stop X offensive behavior with the understanding that if you do not you may face more significant penalties, including an expulsion or a permanent ban?  No.  If you believe you are wronged if and when you receive those more significant penalties, you still have the option of litigation to remedy that wrong.
> 
> No one is saying someone should go to jail or prison without a trial.  I think most people aren't even saying that someone should be ejected immediately from a store or con upon their first non-criminal offense.  However, if a person receives multiple complaints about harassing behavior, then the store or con should have the right to eject or ban that person without going to civil court, or without holding a mock court of their own.



Bingo.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> Harassment does not have to be intentional.  Surely, there are some who think referring to the new female hire as the "new hot piece of _____" is either appropriate or even complimentary.  Their intention means jack if their actions create a hostile environment.
> 
> Likewise, in the example you just posted, the complaint of harassment would not require any proof of intent to harass to take action on it.  Those who run the venue should take action simply based on the reported behavior being a violation of venue policy.



Exactly.


----------



## tomBitonti

Harrumph.  Reasonableness must certainly apply.  I read about a case of attempted rape because a person on one side of a street felt threatened by a person on the other side.  There are police shootings today which rest on very thin grounds of potential harm.

I think it's OK to have a duscussion with someone over inappropriate behavior.  But without clear evidence, there doesn't seem to be more to be done directly with the person who was accused.

What seems to be called for is better awareness and sensitivity, and good training to counteract unwanted behavior.  What we do in the moment to moment matters a lot.  A good way to start countering harassment is to promote all around respectfulness.  Set a high standard and help the folks around you to meet that standard.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MechaPilot said:


> Harassment does not have to be intentional.  Surely, there are some who think referring to the new female hire as the "new hot piece of _____" is either appropriate or even complimentary.  Their intention means jack if their actions create a hostile environment.
> 
> Likewise, in the example you just posted, the complaint of harassment would not require any proof of intent to harass to take action on it.  Those who run the venue should take action simply based on the reported behavior being a violation of venue policy.




I'm your mind if I tell a funny story about puss in boots (from the shrek movies) and someone over heard it out of context and reports me as Useing the very close to that word that is to describe female annatony...is that harassment? Of they felt harassed? 

What if I brought up this very thread at my flgs and someone took a story out of context and complained to Matt (manager) that those guys over there are talking about rape...if he laughs it off and explains is he also now gulty of not taking a harassment charge seriusly? 

My nephew played basketball in a youth league...in the middle of hf time a coach from the other team came up to me swearing I was starting at "his girl" and threatened to break my face...the red got him called down and then told me I shouldn't stare...I was in shock I didn't even know who I was starting at...it turned out his girlfriend was sitting next to my mom...they were score keepers. I was looking at my mom, the players grandmother... So in that very real exams who was the harraser? Me for being looking in the wrong direction, Becuse 2 people felt I was harassing, or the coach that threatened me for it (that in my mind was a out of the blue)?


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, you don't get to tell other people when they have or have not been harassed.  That's not how it works.  See, to me, this is precisely the problem that this whole thread is about.  That complaints are simply dismissed or ignored by the majority.



If the word "harasment" is supposed to have any agreed-upon meaning at all, then yes you do.  Otherwise, I can claim that your posts are harassment, and no one can disagree because that would simply be more harassment.  
Do you accept that you are harassing me?



> Why?  Why is En World a safer atmosphere than other Internet forums?  Is it because we're gamers and we're nicer people?  Not bloody likely.  It's because all complaints are treated seriously and the mods here are extremely active in shutting down bad behaviour.




It's because ENworld has a clear set of rules that are regularly enforced.  It's not about what behaviour is "bad"; it's about whether a post breaks the rules or not.  Presumably a post that doesn't break any rules will be left alone, regardless of whether someone "feels" it is bad behaviour.




> IOW, to get that safe environment requires active responses and not just turning a blind eye and hoping for the best.




Complete strawman.  No one is suggesting that.


----------



## Max_Killjoy

Springheel said:


> If the word "harasment" is supposed to have any agreed-upon meaning at all, then yes you do.  Otherwise, I can claim that your posts are harassment, and no one can disagree because that would simply be more harassment.
> Do you accept that you are harassing me?





Well said.


----------



## Janx

GMforPowergamers said:


> My nephew played basketball in a youth league...in the middle of hf time a coach from the other team came up to me swearing I was starting at "his girl" and threatened to break my face...the red got him called down and then told me I shouldn't stare...I was in shock I didn't even know who I was starting at...it turned out his girlfriend was sitting next to my mom...they were score keepers. I was looking at my mom, the players grandmother... So in that very real exams who was the harraser? Me for being looking in the wrong direction, Becuse 2 people felt I was harassing, or the coach that threatened me for it (that in my mind was a out of the blue)?




I have no doubt this escalated quickly, so anybody thinking of doing a smarter thing was unlikely.  Its unfortunate as a Ref got involved and that raised the stakes quite a bit.

At its core however, looking at anything in reasonable sight cannot be a crime.  This situation lacked proximity, words or unwelcome touch.  Therefore, like the example of 2 people on opposite sides of the street, it can't be harrassment.  Though I'm sure somebody has an alternative instance where it could be, but at somepoint, a line needs to be drawn.

Given that the original article had pretty obvious instances of people within 10 feet or less saying stuff that could be reasonably assumed to be directed at her or innappropriate grabbing, I think being "way over there and just looking at you" needs to qualify as "not harrassment" until we solve the really obvious bad stuff.  Because comedy writers have been mining the "whatchu lookin at" mistake of not properly identifying what another being is looking at for decades.


----------



## Umbran

Springheel said:


> If the word "harasment" is supposed to have any agreed-upon meaning at all, then yes you do.




No, you don't.  Some neutral third party that becomes well informed on the situation does.

Person A does something.  Person B claims harassment.  Person A does *not* get to decide whether they were harassing B.  Nor does anyone who was distant from the situation.  And, even  the third party _doesn't get to say whether B felt harassed_.  They only get to say whether the incident is actionable.  



> It's because ENworld has a clear set of rules that are regularly enforced.




Yes.  And note how *you* (meaning the userbase in general) don't get a say in what counts as harassment on the site?  We don't vote on moderation.  And note how our rules are actually pretty darned vague?  Outside a couple of things (religion, politics, foul language) very few things are listed as actually forbidden.  

My most often used moderation phrase is, "Don't make it personal."  But that's not a Rule, that's advice.  There are cases where giving critique on another'f foibles is fine, and others where it is actionable.  And the difference is in context, not strict rules.


----------



## Rottle

The state gets to define the legal definition of harassment, then a judge or jury decides if an action qualifies as legally harassment.

As far as harassment that doesn't reach a level that the law gets involved, well that I can see the arguements for each of us to define it for ourselves.  The only issue with that is it will potentionally become so broadly defined as to be rendered meaningless.  I think it would be useful to discuss what we as a group consider harassment and work from there.   Or simply accept that the legal definition is the only one worth discussing, though I am not in favor of that.   

In a factual sense the definition that matters is first that held by the authority in an area, store manager at a gaming store, mods on a website, security at a mall so on and so forth.  Secondly the law's definition....actually reverse that law first local authority second, not to put down mods but getting banned from posting on enworld does not compare to getting to spend time in jail....

I am trying to write my definition and frankly I am making it so broad I am not sure it would work....its kind of I hope I know it when I see it but to actually put down specifics is tough....


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> No, you don't.  Some neutral third party that becomes well informed on the situation does.
> 
> Person A does something.  Person B claims harassment.  Person A does *not* get to decide whether they were harassing B.  Nor does anyone who was distant from the situation.  And, even  the third party _doesn't get to say whether B felt harassed_.  They only get to say whether the incident is actionable.




Let's consider this from the game shop or convention setting and the author's point that people need to stand up and say something when a group member misbehaves.

So we're at the game shop, you (any reader, not just Umbran), me and Danny are playing a game.  A woman walks in and I say something crude involving her and my THAC0 that could be considered offensive, sexist and just wrong on non-euclidean geometry levels.

What can you and should you do (in a non-violent, legal response)?

One of the things to consider in this example, is that YOU are not an authority figure, you are just a customer like me.  But you are a Third Party, per Umbran's framing.

Personally, I think when we witness such an incident, the simplest thing we need to do is call it out and say that's not acceptable.  It may be less confrontational to quietly get up and leave or go talk to the manager, but I think the woman might appreciate seeing the bad behavior put down by "peers" immediately.  Which is something that sounds like doesn't happen in most women's experience.

And no, I don't go making statements like that to women at all, ever.  I just used me as the bad guy so we can work from something concrete.


----------



## MechaPilot

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm your mind if I tell a funny story about puss in boots (from the shrek movies) and someone over heard it out of context and reports me as Useing the very close to that word that is to describe female annatony...is that harassment? Of they felt harassed?
> 
> What if I brought up this very thread at my flgs and someone took a story out of context and complained to Matt (manager) that those guys over there are talking about rape...if he laughs it off and explains is he also now gulty of not taking a harassment charge seriusly?
> 
> My nephew played basketball in a youth league...in the middle of hf time a coach from the other team came up to me swearing I was starting at "his girl" and threatened to break my face...the red got him called down and then told me I shouldn't stare...I was in shock I didn't even know who I was starting at...it turned out his girlfriend was sitting next to my mom...they were score keepers. I was looking at my mom, the players grandmother... So in that very real exams who was the harraser? Me for being looking in the wrong direction, Becuse 2 people felt I was harassing, or the coach that threatened me for it (that in my mind was a out of the blue)?




Harassment is about creating a hostile environment.  That very much can be done by people who think they are acting appropriately, as in the example I gave.

I'm not going to address your hypotheticals because they both involve 1) misunderstandings that can easily be explained, and/or 2) topics that probably should be avoided in public places that allow children to enter.  "Puss" is a term for female anatomy on its own these days: have you never heard the phrase to "crush puss?"  There are just some words, like "puss" and "niggardly" that reasonable people should understand have a decent chance of being misinterpreted as being vulgar or racist, especially if a person catches only part of what was said.

However, the threat against you in your real life example was harassment, possibly criminal harassment (most likely assault, or some other crime more specifically defined as making verbal threats to another's person).


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Hussar said:


> Yes, you probably should.  At least the dick joke one.  Is it appropriate for a venue that includes children?



I've had to do this with coworkers at job sites where children are present. And at grocery stores when either my wife or children (or both) were present. 

It's not just teenage males living in their own little bubbles of boisterous arrogance that have to be dealt with, but grown men in their early to mid-twenties. The later seem to have formed the idea that because two men are speaking the world at large is irrelevant; their words are for each other and that alone is sufficient reason to spend no energy whatsoever on the consideration of the effect their words might have on others. 

So yeah, burst those bubbles. Guys like that who remain unchallenged go on to become a$$holes that make life miserable for their coworkers, friends and family.


----------



## Springheel

Umbran said:


> No, you don't.  Some neutral third party that becomes well informed on the situation does.




You're changing the definition of "you" to mean the person accused of harassment.  That wasn't how I was using the term, nor was the comment I was responding to, as far as I can tell.



> Person A does something.  Person B claims harassment.  Person A does *not* get to decide whether they were harassing B.  Nor does anyone who was distant from the situation.  And, even  the third party _doesn't get to say whether B felt harassed_.  They only get to say whether the incident is actionable.




You're not really disagreeing with what I said.  In order for the word "harassment" to mean anything more than "whatever someone doesn't like", then it has to have some kind of qualifiers.  Once those exist, behaviour can be measured against those qualifiers to see if it actually is harassment or not.  You can argue that neither person A or person B are in the best position to do that without bias, but that's really a separate point from the one I was making.



> And note how *you* (meaning the userbase in general) don't get a say in what counts as harassment on the site?




Yes, that's essentially the point I was making.  It is not left up to me or the userbase in general to decide what counts as harassment, even if I feel I have been harassed.


----------



## tomBitonti

Maybe we can leave off from discussion EnWorld's policies here?  I know they are _somewhat_ topical, but I would prefer to shift that part of the discussion to Meta, if at all.  I don't see a way to "stay within the lines" if that particular discussion is continued.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> Let's consider this from the game shop or convention setting and the author's point that people need to stand up and say something when a group member misbehaves.




A good idea.



> So we're at the game shop, you (any reader, not just Umbran), me and Danny are playing a game.  A woman walks in and I say something crude involving her and my THAC0 that could be considered offensive, sexist and just wrong on non-euclidean geometry levels.
> 
> What can you and should you do (in a non-violent, legal response)?
> 
> One of the things to consider in this example, is that YOU are not an authority figure, you are just a customer like me.  But you are a Third Party, per Umbran's framing.




Well, in a typical RPG, there is a sort of authority figure - the GM.  

As a GM, the response is pretty simple, to the effect of, "Dude, that was *not* cool.  Maybe I didn't make it clear, but I have a strict, 'No jerks,' policy at my table.  Apologize to the lady, or please pack up and go."  This all dependent on what the store or con's policy, if any, may be.

As a player, to the effect of "Dude, that was *not* cool!"  To the woman: "I'm sorry you were subjected to that.  It wasn't acceptable behavior." To the GM, if any, "You going to allow that kind of thing at your table?"


----------



## Janx

tomBitonti said:


> Maybe we can leave off from discussion EnWorld's policies here?  I know they are _somewhat_ topical, but I would prefer to shift that part of the discussion to Meta, if at all.  I don't see a way to "stay within the lines" if that particular discussion is continued.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




Indeed.  The original article gave a lot of concrete examples of being in a game shop or at a gaming table or at a convention.  Somebody grabbing her or making a dirty comment that could reasonably be assumed to be directed at her or about her.

We can't see or stop private email harrassment.  Or determine correctly if somebody is staring at us or something else.  And we're not the mods on EN World.

But we are people.  Who are in places where this stuff may be happening.

There was a line from the X-Files from a character to the effect of "I spent years playing DUngeons and Dragons.  I'd like to think I learned something about heroism".  Standing up for somebody when harrassment is going down ought to be our shining moment to demonstrate that we learned right from wrong and will make a stand for it.


----------



## Hussar

Springheel said:


> You're changing the definition of "you" to mean the person accused of harassment.  That wasn't how I was using the term, nor was the comment I was responding to, as far as I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not really disagreeing with what I said.  In order for the word "harassment" to mean anything more than "whatever someone doesn't like", then it has to have some kind of qualifiers.  Once those exist, behaviour can be measured against those qualifiers to see if it actually is harassment or not.  You can argue that neither person A or person B are in the best position to do that without bias, but that's really a separate point from the one I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's essentially the point I was making.  It is not left up to me or the userbase in general to decide what counts as harassment, even if I feel I have been harassed.




No, it really doesn't need qualifiers.  That, right there, is a major part of the problem.  "Oh, well, you aren't really being hurt, so, too bad" is the wall of silence that many women have to face any time they do have the courage to stand up and say something.  And it's a ludicrous standard.

I mentioned before the idea of a noise complaint at a hotel, or someone bothering some woman at a bar.  The management doesn't go stand outside the room with a decibel meter to make sure that the people are actually being loud.  He simply calls up to the room and tells them to please be more quiet.  

In GM4Powergamer's examples above, particularly the one about staring at the girl, what was the end result?  He was a bit embarrassed.  That's it.  What if he actually had been staring at the woman?  Would it matter?  Not really.  Being embarrassed for five minutes is a small price to pay to make women feel safe in public.  Now, obviously, the player's response was entirely out of line, of course.  But, at the end of the day, the only effect here is a bit of red face for @GM4Powergamers.  

See, this idea that "we need to nail down definitions" is a rabbit hole that you can never dig your way out of.  There's no way to construct a code of conduct for public behaviour that will cover all possible issues without being very vague and broad, which means that sometimes innocent behaviour will get caught up too.  But, it's a poor excuse for not doing anything.


----------



## LordEntrails

Hussar said:


> See, this idea that "we need to nail down definitions" is a rabbit hole that you can never dig your way out of.  There's no way to construct a code of conduct for public behaviour that will cover all possible issues without being very vague and broad, which means that sometimes innocent behaviour will get caught up too.  But, it's a poor excuse for not doing anything.




As a potentially interesting point, about a dozen years ago I had to go through a corporate harassment training class (in Colorado, USA). The "instructor" was a corporate lawyer who supposedly specialized in harassment, though it seemed she probably just got licensed. Anyway, after about 90 minutes of "training" us, the audience started asking pointed questions. By the end of the 2 hour class, she agreed that their was no definitive legal definition of harassment, and that in the end it would depend upon what the the two sides in the case could convince the jury of. And that emotion was key to convincing the jury.

Maybe their is now a better legal definition, but I doubt it.


----------



## MechaPilot

LordEntrails said:


> As a potentially interesting point, about a dozen years ago I had to go through a corporate harassment training class (in Colorado, USA). The "instructor" was a corporate lawyer who supposedly specialized in harassment, though it seemed she probably just got licensed. Anyway, after about 90 minutes of "training" us, the audience started asking pointed questions. By the end of the 2 hour class, she agreed that their was no definitive legal definition of harassment, and that in the end it would depend upon what the the two sides in the case could convince the jury of. And that emotion was key to convincing the jury.
> 
> Maybe their is now a better legal definition, but I doubt it.




There are several things in law that don't have a specific definition, but rather are left to a "facts and circumstances" test.  It makes things less clear, but my understanding is that such tests are intended to retain the spirit of the laws they apply to, and not to overly limit the laws in question because one single element of a definition was not present while most of the others were.


----------



## Springheel

Hussar said:


> No, it really doesn't need qualifiers.  .




I notice you completely ignored this:


> If the word "harasment" is supposed to have any agreed-upon meaning at all, then yes you do. Otherwise, I can claim that your posts are harassment, and no one can disagree because that would simply be more harassment.
> Do you accept that you are harassing me?




So, are you?


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

MechaPilot said:


> Harassment is about creating a hostile environment.  That very much can be done by people who think they are acting appropriately, as in the example I gave.
> 
> I'm not going to address your hypotheticals because they both involve 1) misunderstandings that can easily be explained, and/or 2) topics that probably should be avoided in public places that allow children to enter.  "Puss" is a term for female anatomy on its own these days: have you never heard the phrase to "crush puss?"  There are just some words, like "puss" and "niggardly" that reasonable people should understand have a decent chance of being misinterpreted as being vulgar or racist, especially if a person catches only part of what was said.
> 
> However, the threat against you in your real life example was harassment, possibly criminal harassment (most likely assault, or some other crime more specifically defined as making verbal threats to another's person).



wait... so since I'm a woman no one can tell me about a shrek Christmas special because Puss in boots is in it?  I think this is getting extreme...

I don't care who looks at me, and I'm not worried about a juvenile joke, but threats and down right insults or lewd suggestions all have to go... and for gods sake keep your hands off me. 

how did we swing so far the other way were now I have to not be allowed to be in the store to talk about a kids cartoon????


----------



## MechaPilot

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> wait... so since I'm a woman no one can tell me about a shrek Christmas special because Puss in boots is in it?




That's not even remotely close to what I said.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

MechaPilot said:


> That's not even remotely close to what I said.



it is exactly what you said... I quoted it... 

There are 2 things that make me feel unwelcome at cons and stores (well 3 but one has nothing to do with this) 

1) men going super vile and touching or threatening or shameing
2) people trying so hard to rubber wall the room so dainty little me doesn't get hurt that everyone trips over themselves.




MechaPilot said:


> Harassment is about creating a hostile environment.  That very much can be done by people who think they are acting appropriately, as in the example I gave.




 "Puss" is a term for female anatomy on its own these days: have you never heard the phrase to "crush puss?"  There are just some words, like "puss" and "niggardly" that reasonable people should understand have a decent chance of being misinterpreted as being vulgar or racist, especially if a person catches only part of what was said.[/QUOTE]

put those two together for a moment...maybe you didn't mean to say it, but look at what you said... it is almost worse your way then his


----------



## MechaPilot

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> it is exactly what you said...




Not at all.  Please read.  I have a cold and virtually no patience to explain the obvious fact that you should be aware of what you say, and who you're saying it to/around, and that something you've innocently said can be misconstrued by a stranger who doesn't catch your entire conversation.  That is absolutely not the same thing as your friend who knows you and how you will react not being able to tell you about the Shrek Xmas special and you should most certainly know that and not need to have me explain it to you!


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

LordEntrails said:


> As a potentially interesting point, about a dozen years ago I had to go through a corporate harassment training class (in Colorado, USA). The "instructor" was a corporate lawyer who supposedly specialized in harassment, though it seemed she probably just got licensed. Anyway, after about 90 minutes of "training" us, the audience started asking pointed questions. By the end of the 2 hour class, she agreed that their was no definitive legal definition of harassment, and that in the end it would depend upon what the the two sides in the case could convince the jury of. And that emotion was key to convincing the jury.
> 
> Maybe their is now a better legal definition, but I doubt it.




I had a friend who was a paralegal once (I think he may have gone full law school since) and he used to say that about almost all crimes and civil case.



> definitive legal definition of XXXXXXX, and that in the end it would depend upon what the the two sides in the case could convince the jury of. And that emotion was key to convincing the jury.



then again he also use to joke about it being about research too, and that there was precedent for any and every thing on both sides of any argument, you just had to find them


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

MechaPilot said:


> Not at all.  Please read.  I have a cold and virtually no patience to explain the obvious fact that you should be aware of what you say, and who you're saying it to/around, and that something you've innocently said can be misconstrued by a stranger who doesn't catch your entire conversation.  That is absolutely not the same thing as your friend who knows you and how you will react not being able to tell you about the Shrek Xmas special and you should most certainly know that and not need to have me explain it to you!




except once I walk into a new FLGS you think any and all conversation that can be 'misconstrued' should end... think about what conversation I'm talking about... if Jimbo and Jonny are talking about puss in boots in the corner they have to stop and wonder..."OMG a girl walked in...I have to not be myself or talk like myself even about this kids cartoon or I may harass her" and you think that environment will make me feel comfortable?

I'm in a bad mood myself, and have been since around noon yesterday (I doubt anyone here is the fault for it) so mayb I am being more negative today, but you sure are doing a bad job explaining what you want to say without making it sound like you think I'm not just another customer int he store or con...


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

If you're in a bad mood, then you should avoid posting until you feel better. (Speaking from much experience here.)

MechaPilot has been a beacon of calm in this conversation for numerous pages. She's been very open and remained polite. 

She deserves the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## MechaPilot

sanishiver said:


> If you're in a bad mood, then you should avoid posting until you feel better. (Speaking from much experience here.)




Admittedly, that advice applies to me too.  I probably should take a break until I recover.




sanishiver said:


> MechaPilot has been a beacon of calm in this conversation for numerous pages. She's been very open and remained polite.




Thank you for the compliment.


----------

