# Luke Crane Resigns From Kickstarter



## Panjumanju (Mar 27, 2021)

Intense.

It is becoming increasingly complicated separating artists from their work in a hobby industry where we try to reward community.

What does Luke Crane do next, I wonder?

//Panjumanju


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Mar 27, 2021)

What an utterly stupid way to blow up your career in tech.


----------



## Jeff Carpenter (Mar 27, 2021)

Job first friends second is my motto. Its a lot easier to make new friends than it is to find a new career. And any real friend will understand why you are not risking your career for them.


----------



## pming (Mar 27, 2021)

...reaches for 10' pole...
..
...nope...
..


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2021)

This is definitely in the realm of "WTF was Crane thinking?" This could only have ended explosively.


----------



## DM Magic (Mar 27, 2021)

What a joke of an apology. I wonder if Crane and Koebel have the same ghostwriter...


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 27, 2021)

billd91 said:


> This is definitely in the realm of "WTF was Crane thinking?" This could only have ended explosively.



Is it over yet? Probably not... It may yet explode.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Is it over yet? Probably not... It may yet explode.



The project is dead. Crane is out of his job. This particular incident seems pretty over and done. That doesn't mean that people are going to forget, mind you.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 27, 2021)

billd91 said:


> The project is dead. Crane is out of his job. This particular incident seems pretty over and done. That doesn't mean that people are going to forget, mind you.



The project being dead doesn't mean it's not going to explode all over Luke's small business with Thor Olavsruud. Or at conventions.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 27, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> The project being dead doesn't mean it's not going to explode all over Luke's small business with Thor Olavsruud. Or at conventions.



There were definitely people who requested that their Torchbearer 2nd Edition Kickstarter pledges be cancelled and refunded as a result of this Perfect RPG debacle.


----------



## DM Magic (Mar 27, 2021)

billd91 said:


> The project is dead. Crane is out of his job. This particular incident seems pretty over and done. That doesn't mean that people are going to forget, mind you.



Which is a shame for the other writers. And I _loooove _micro RPG's.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 27, 2021)

I wonder about what is going to happen the day when players of the Call of the Culhthu discover Lovecraft had got serious racial predjudices.


----------



## Waller (Mar 27, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I wonder about what is going to happen the day when players of the Call of the Culhthu discover Lovecraft had got serious racial predjudices.



He died of cancer in the 1930s. I suspect it might be a little late for him to lose his job. So you don't need to worry about him.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 27, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I wonder about what is going to happen the day when players of the Call of the Culhthu discover Lovecraft had got serious racial predjudices.



The CoC community has been dealing with that particular dilemma for quite a few years now. So I wouldn’t worry about them.

Not that I see the correlation to Luke Crane and his Kickstarter, mind you.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 27, 2021)

I don't defend what that guy did. He did a wrong action and his reputation was tainted. Even if he apologies the forgive will have to await a long time. But sometimes I feel serious fear with the cancel culture if this may become too irrational. We have to report what is wrong, but also we need good sense and serenity, or we also will commit our own mistakes because we are too blinded by our proud and fury.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 27, 2021)

Lule Crane is not cancelled. He’s still fulfilling the Torchbearer Kickstarter and is free to create other Kickstarters at will. He gets quite a lot of support from backers there as well. 

He lost his job as VP of Community at Kickstarter, a position that is reliant on the trust of the community. A not illogical result of riling up that very community, I believe.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Mar 27, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I don't defend what that guy did. He did a wrong action and his reputation was tainted. Even if he apologies the forgive will have to await a long time. But sometimes I feel serious fear with the cancel culture if this may become too irrational. We have to report what is wrong, but also we need good sense and serenity, or we also will commit our own mistakes because we are too blinded by our proud and fury.



I don't see anything irrational about this turn of events, other than Crane's own idea to bring Koebel onto the project in a duplicitous manner, and then defending himself by abusing Kickstarter site tools that are not available to other campaign runners, thus giving his employer a bad name.

Seriously, what was he thinking? How did he think this was going to go?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2021)

Lovecraft can no longer materially benefit from his works. Reading them, playing CoC, does nothing that he can benefit from.


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Is it ever going to end..? It's high time to give Koebel a break, it's not like he's a war criminal or something like that and should be pushed to the ground any time he wants to do something RPG-related. He made an error, not something that warrants for an everlasting exclusion.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Is it ever going to end..? It's high time to give Koebel a break, it's not like he's a war criminal or something like that and should be pushed to the ground any time he wants to do something RPG-related. He made an error, not something that warrants for an everlasting exclusion.



There’s nothing stopping him doing stuff. I’m sure if he produces something he’ll have an audience. Maybe less than before but he’ll have an audience. 

The problem here is that people weren’t given the option of _choosing_ whether to work with him.


----------



## Retreater (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Is it ever going to end..? It's high time to give Koebel a break, it's not like he's a war criminal or something like that and should be pushed to the ground any time he wants to do something RPG-related. He made an error, not something that warrants for an everlasting exclusion.



I don't know. I mean I think creators should be able to work with people they want to work with. And customers should be able to support writers they want.
If he wants to make his own stuff, there will be an audience. But no one should be forced to support him.


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Morrus said:


> There’s nothing stopping him doing stuff. I’m sure if he produces something he’ll have an audience. Maybe less than before but he’ll have an audience.
> 
> The problem here is that people weren’t given the option of _choosing_ whether to work with him.



I really don't think an option like that should  necessarily be provided, given how he got 'cancelled', I'd reckon basically no one would want to work with him, leading to further exclusion, to no end. Completely pointless.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> I really don't think an option like that should  necessarily be provided, given how he git 'cancellled', I'd reckon basically no one would want to work with him, leading to further exclusion, to no end. Completely pointless.



I suggest you just let people decide who they want to work with rather than lecturing them about their choices.


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I suggest you just let people decide who they want to work with rather than lecturing them about their choices.



I don't seem to remember lecturing anyone, merely expressing an opinion (I had been misguided in being free to do that, it appears). All this Koebel-hate for what he did is excessive on one hand, and boring, on the other.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 27, 2021)

double post.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 27, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I wonder about what is going to happen the day when players of the Call of the Culhthu discover Lovecraft had got serious racial predjudices.



They make a game like Harlem Unbound? And then give it a few ENnies after it garners some great reviews? And the second edition is printed by Chaosium.

It's also one of the reasons the name of the genre has been slowly changing from "Lovecraftian" to "Cosmic Horror" and other public works related to the genre (or even inspired genre) are coming to the fore. i.e., the increased fascination with the Yellow King, and of course the fantastic fiction, like the _Ballad of Black Tom_ and _Lovecraft Country - _(Which is now a HBO show) that have tackled this very issue.

So asked and answered?








						Chaosium picks up 3 times ENnie winning Harlem Unbound and will publish the second edition
					

The mystery is set in 1920s New York City Harlem, prohibition is in full swing but while classes and cultures collide, Lovecraftian horrors crawl beneath the neighbourhood.




					www.geeknative.com


----------



## Maggan (Mar 27, 2021)

Von Ether said:


> They make a game like Harlem Unbound? And then give it a few ENnies after it garners some great reviews? And the second edition is printed by Chaosium.
> 
> It's also one of the reasons the name of the genre has been slowly changing from "Lovecraftian" to "Cosmic Horror" and other public works related to the genre (or even inspired genre) are coming to the fore. i.e., the increased fascination with the Yellow King, and of course the fantastic fiction, like the _Ballad of Black Tom_ and _Lovecraft Country - _(Which is now a HBO show) that have tackled this very issue.
> 
> ...




Still not seeing the correlation to Luke Crane and his Kickstarter? Or were you answering another question?

EDIT: Ah noticed you first quoted me intending to quote another poster.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 27, 2021)

Von Ether said:


> They make a game like Harlem Unbound? And then give it a few ENnies after it garners some great reviews? And the second edition is printed by Chaosium.
> 
> It's also one of the reasons the name of the genre has been slowly changing from "Lovecraftian" to "Cosmic Horror" and other public works related to the genre (or even inspired genre) are coming to the fore. i.e., the increased fascination with the Yellow King, and of course the fantastic fiction, like the _Ballad of Black Tom_ and _Lovecraft Country - _(Which is now a HBO show) that have tackled this very issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> I don't seem to remember lecturing anyone, merely expressing an opinion (I had been misguided in being free to do that, it appears).



Nobody has prevented Koebel from doing things. Nobody has prevented you from saying anything. I think you are confused about the difference between disagreement with censorship.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 27, 2021)

Maggan said:


> Still not seeing the correlation to Luke Crane and his Kickstarter? Or were you answering another question?



apologies, I was and clicked on the wrong post to reply to.


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Nobody has prevented Koebel from doing things. Nobody has prevented you from saying anything. I think you are confused about the difference between disagreement with censorship.



I don't, I just heavily disagree with your 'subtle' suggestion.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> I don't, I just heavily disagree with your 'subtle' suggestion.



I don't know what that means. You don't think people should be allowed to choose who they work with?


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I don't know what that means. You don't think people should be allowed to choose who they work with?



All I meant is a reply to this: 'I suggest you just let..' - no, don't suggest me anything, I'm allowed to have an opinion. This fuss about Koebel is really way more excessive than it ever should have been and everybody should have forgotten about it a long time ago, not holding on to it like was unforgivable offense.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 27, 2021)

Koebel is free to produce something in the RPG sphere if he wants to. 
No one is stopping him from doing so. 

However being linked with him on a project is toxic. Creators/writers SHOULD KNOW if they are working on a project with someone who is perceived as toxic. 

If you're going to give him the benefit of the doubt on one side, those creators deserve to know who they are working with on the other so that THEY can have agency to decide IF they want to work with him or not. 

Arguing for and defending an abuser to be let off the hook while at the same time arguing that people who might be working with said abuser SHOULDNT be told that they are working with said abuser is problematic.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> All I meant is a reply to this: 'I suggest you just let..' - no, don't suggest me anything, I'm allowed to have an opinion.



Did you literally just order me not to say something while defending your own right to say what you want? Is somebody going jump out from behind a plant pot and reveal I'm being Punked or something?


----------



## Maggan (Mar 27, 2021)

Sooooo ... this drama about Koebel is all very interesting ... but what about the actual thread topic, Luke Crane?


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Did you literally just order me not to say something while defending your own right to say what you want? Is somebody going jump out from behind a plant pot and reveal I'm being Punked or something?



Did you literally told me what to do and let other people decide..? If that's the case, call it even. And if you're wondering, that was my problem in the first place, don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you, either, it's only fair.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Did you literally told me what to do and let other people decide..? If that's the case, call it even. And if you're wondering, that was my problem in the first place, don't tell ne what to do, I won't tell you, either, it's only fair.



You're a very confusing person.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Did you literally told me what to do and let other people decide..? If that's the case, call it even. And if you're wondering, that was my problem in the first place, don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you, either, it's only fair.



Er, just a heads-up here...the problem you might be unwittingly sailing into is that the person you're arguing with is this site's owner; and as such - like it or not - he to some extent *can* tell you what to do.


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Er, just a heads-up here...the problem you might be unwittingly sailing into is that the person you're arguing with is this site's owner; and as such - like it or not - he to some extent *can* tell you what to do.



I know exactly who he is, and what we’re talking about (and how) is far from that said extent.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> This fuss about Koebel is really way more excessive than it ever should have been and everybody should have forgotten about it a long time ago, not holding on to it like was unforgivable offense.



Your sense of "a long time ago" was March of 2020.


----------



## Guest 7025638 (Mar 27, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Your sense of "a long time ago" was March of 2020.



Yes. It should have been a topic for like a week, not for a year (and more..).


----------



## darjr (Mar 27, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Did you literally just order me not to say something while defending your own right to say what you want? Is somebody going jump out from behind a plant pot and reveal I'm being Punked or something?



Me! It's going to be me! .... now if only I knew what to put in the pot ....


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Yes. It should have been a topic for like a week, not for a year (and more..).



It probably would have been had he (1) not marketed himself as a safe and inclusive streamer, and (2) appropriately apologized and recognized what he did.


----------



## darjr (Mar 27, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It probably would have been had he (1) not marketed himself as a safe and inclusive streamer, and (2) appropriately apologized and recognized what he did.



I don't think so, he proved to be unsafe. His apology was, to me, insincere. I would NOT want anyone working with me on a project to be exposed to him. Flat out.

He does still work for Peter Adkison on the Chaldea comic doesn't he? If so he's working there.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 27, 2021)

darjr said:


> No, he proved to be unsafe. I would NOT want anyone working with me on a project to be exposed to him. Flat out.



Agreed, but that ties in with (1).


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 27, 2021)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Arguing for and defending an abuser to be let off the hook while at the same time arguing that people who might be working with said abuser SHOULDNT be told that they are working with said abuser is problematic.




After this comment, i went online to read what happened. Particularly, i was curious about why the term abuser was used.

Now that i have:

It would have already been a serious issue if it had happened privately, at the table.

The fact that it was done while streaming makes it even more serious.

However i think a conversation is needed about this new medium of streaming. And what boundaries/expectations need to be drawn/set befofe starting such a creative endeavour with a group.

i recently found out about what Bertolucci and Brando did in Last Tango. Instead of landing Brando and Bertolucci a prison sentence, the film won awards and got nominated for Oscars...









						Last Tango scandal shows toxic extent of male power in the film industry | Peter Bradshaw
					

Marlon Brando and Bernardo Bertolucci’s prioritisation of cinema over human feelings is the tip of the iceberg in industry that has seen abuse go unchallenged for decades




					www.theguardian.com
				




The reason i'm mentioning it is because there's different levels of abusive behaviour. Putting them all in the same bracket of "abuser" isn't helpful, i don't think.

Going back to AK, I'm not going to downplay what the guy did in this instance.
But if you're going to assume that particular stance that i put in a quote for his behaviour, what would you expect for someone that is on the sex offender register? Surely the severity is not the same, i mean was he convicted of a crime? Should he be, in your opinion?

I do think we should scrutinise media, and creators. The music industry, and the movie industry are big ones, who are in dire need of proper scrutiny. Media outlets. (Media ownership, and how that impacts our frail democracies. But i digress). That doesn't mean that the smaller ones should be free of scrutiny, either.

But i'm not sure that automatically assuming the position of outrage and "burn them at the stake" attirude is the right approach either. People make mistakes. We all do. We need to be able to talk about it. Demonising people isn't the answer, I don't think.


----------



## darjr (Mar 27, 2021)

I think there were a lot of people hoping that he would see, really see, and make amends, to become a better person. His behavior after let a lot of those folks down. There are other things that have come to light after as well. As with Hollywood we only see the iceberg above the waters. It is THE reason people are so adamant and reluctant to work with him and now possibly Luke. It's because they did not seem to take what happened seriously. Almost the opposite in both cases. Anyway I'm totally on board with redemption. But there needs to be some, really be there.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Yes. It should have been a topic for like a week, not for a year (and more..).



Luke...Luke Crane? Is that you?!?


polyhedral man said:


> After this comment, i went online to read what happened. Particularly, i was curious about why the term abuser was used.
> 
> Now that i have:
> 
> ...



I used the word abuser not because he committed a crime or should be charged with one. I used the word because this was someone who marketed himself as safe and promoted safety and inclusiveness at TTRPG tables and within the community at large.

What he did on that stream wasn't spur of the moment. There's a video out there on youtube where the young lady who was the player in that scenario states that Adam asked her about her PC's and possible story directions for her PC in the future. He knew what he was going to do before he did it and KNEW that his players if asked before hand would have objected to what he was going to do. 

THAT'S why I called him an abuser. And THAT'S why he caught and still continues to catch flak for what he did. That and his non apology. And yes had it been at a private table it still would have been messed up and wrong. But this was done live on stream on a fairly popular streamed game. The faces of the other players during the stream says it all. They were stunned by what happened. Especially coming from Koebel. 

And as far as "mistakes" and "forgiveness" goes? 

It's my experience that people who like pushing boundaries and then do "non-apologies" are not to be trusted. AT ALL. Because for them? It's just them testing boundaries to see what they can get away with next time. Typical narc behavior. 

You can usually tell the difference between them and the people who are legitimately apologetic and want to do the work not to make the same kind of mistake again. 

Koebel is the FORMER. Not the Latter.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 27, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Er, just a heads-up here...the problem you might be unwittingly sailing into is that the person you're arguing with is this site's owner; and as such - like it or not - he to some extent *can* tell you what to do.




When people participate in a forum, they (quite rightly) expect moderators to keep personal opinions and moderation separate, they are different hats.

Since the moderation aspect hasn't been brought up (not even by the moderator), the fact that you suggest that he should modify his opinion, just because he is conversing with a moderator, does this forum a disservice in my opinion.


----------



## DM Magic (Mar 27, 2021)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I wonder about what is going to happen the day when players of the Call of the Culhthu discover Lovecraft had got serious racial predjudices.



They know. It’s been sort of a big deal for a while.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 27, 2021)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Luke...Luke Crane? Is that you?!?
> 
> I used the word abuser not because he committed a crime or should be charged with one. I used the word because this was someone who marketed himself as safe and promoted safety and inclusiveness at TTRPG tables and within the community at large.
> 
> ...




I actually agree with a lot of your observations about patterns of behaviour in how people like that behave. And the pre-meditated nature does make it worse.

What i was trying to get at, is that even though this is clearly reprehensible behaviour, i'm not sure it warrants saying "look this guy is participating in that project. Are you still cool to participate?"

The reason i don't think that's right is because it places the project creator in the uncomfortable position of being judge, jury and executioner.

Imagine if someone did that to me or you, without good reason. We could sue them for defamation. Because they imply i did something wrong. Based on hearsay.


----------



## DM Magic (Mar 27, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Is it ever going to end..? It's high time to give Koebel a break, it's not like he's a war criminal or something like that and should be pushed to the ground any time he wants to do something RPG-related. He made an error, not something that warrants for an everlasting exclusion.



He emotionally abused a partner and destroyed a friendship over a job. He’s not a war criminal, nor is he owed an audience or a platform to reach said audience.


----------



## DM Magic (Mar 27, 2021)

Maggan said:


> Sooooo ... this drama about Koebel is all very interesting ... but what about the actual thread topic, Luke Crane?



The thread topic is about Crane’s inclusion of Koebel, the fall out, and the subsequent dismissal of Crane from his job. In my mind, Koebel is completely on-topic.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 27, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I actually agree with a lot of your observations about patterns of behaviour in how people like that behave. And the pre-meditated nature does make it worse.
> 
> What i was trying to get at, is that even though this is clearly reprehensible behaviour, i'm not sure it warrants saying "look this guy is participating in that project. Are you still cool to participate?"
> 
> ...



I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. As the project creator / manager it's kind of my responsibility to make sure that the project team in question is okay working with other team members who's very public actions my tarnish their reputations by association. While your concern is for the offending party, I'm going to be worried about the otherwise non toxic team members who at the bare minimum should have a heads up about who they're working with. 

It's not being a judge, jury or executioner. 

It's called being a responsible project manager/ team leader. 

And no one is going to sue me or you for warning the other team members about someone's very public reputation and allowing them to make a decision on their own. Hell, you havent even considered how this can go the other way. Someone else's reputation and brand being tarnished because they were on a project with someone like Koebel and then they turn around and sue the project leader for not telling them? That seems to be a more viable situation than the one you proposed.


----------



## CandyLaser (Mar 27, 2021)

It's worth noting that the way Crane added Koebel was quite duplicitous. Koebel wasn't in the initial publicity material, and when his name did show up, the names were listed in reverse alphabetical order by first name—you know, that perfectly ordinary way to list things that we do all the time—resulting in Koebel's name being buried at the back. And that's on top of not telling the other contributors about Koebel's involvement.

Koebel does not have to be a perpetual _persona non grata _in the world of RPGs. But if he's going to re-enter that space as a creator, 1) it can't be done in this underhanded way, and 2) it has to come after he's actually made amends. It's not like he can just vanish for a while and come back and say, "It's all right! I'm good now!" There needs to be evidence that he's changed his ways, and attempting to surreptitiously smuggle himself back in is in fact evidence that he has not. 

Moreover, Koebel's involvement isn't the only issue. Crane also abused his position at Kickstarter to do things denied to other users. For instance, he changed his username and deleted user comments on this and other Kickstarter projects he created, which Kickstarter has said it can't do for non-employees. That results in a bunch of bad effects, such as people who've changed their name being stuck creating projects under their old name and being unable to effectively moderate their Kickstarter campaign comments. Dropping Crane is the right move for Kickstarter here, but they should go further and allow users to change their names on the site. Crane's abuse shows that it is, in fact, doable.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 27, 2021)

DM Magic said:


> He emotionally abused a partner and destroyed a friendship over a job.



I didn't know about that part...yikes.

What he did on camera was bad enough that I would have lost his phone number and never interacted with him in person again if I was in his group. But that's a level higher than that...


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 27, 2021)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. As the project creator / manager it's kind of my responsibility to make sure that the project team in question is okay working with other team members who's very public actions my tarnish their reputations by association. While your concern is for the offending party, I'm going to be worried about the otherwise non toxic team members who at the bare minimum should have a heads up about who they're working with.
> 
> It's not being a judge, jury or executioner.
> 
> ...



I'd be curious to find out how you feel about the Kevin Spacey situation:

"In October 2017, actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of making a sexual advance toward him in 1986, when Rapp was 14. Other men alleged that Spacey had made unwanted advances and had sexually harassed them as well. Netflix cut ties with Spacey, shelving his film _Gore_ and removing him from the last season of _House of Cards_. Spacey's role as J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's film _All the Money in the World_ (2017) was reshot with Christopher Plummer in his place.[4][5] In 2018, _Billionaire Boys Club_ (which had been completed before the allegations surfaced) was released with Spacey's role unchanged and as of 2021, it remains his last film.[6]

As of March 2021, the case involving Spacey has yet to come to court and he has not been found guilty of any criminal offence."

(From Wikipedia)

That has to suck, those kind of ramifications, especially for something that you didn't do. What i'm saying is, in my opinion we should stop making snap judgements through the trial of public opinion. That's true both when we're the audience, and it's true when we're potential co-creators too - in my mind at least.

CandyLaser offered some additional context about this specific case that i wasn't aware of. And that info does change things. I was speaking about the principle earlier. With regards to the general principle: I'm undecided on whose responsibility it is, primarily. Arguably, it shouldn't matter who asks the question. If i'm transparent, i can allow people to make decisions based on their opinions/values/information. 

But that's different to an expectation on the part of the project creator to _inform people about x_. I personally have a problem with that. Inform about what, exactly? On what basis? How much evidence would you need? It's very ok to agree to disagree, i just wanted to explain my thought process.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 27, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I'd be curious to find out how you feel about the Kevin Spacey situation:
> 
> "In October 2017, actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of making a sexual advance toward him in 1986, when Rapp was 14. Other men alleged that Spacey had made unwanted advances and had sexually harassed them as well. Netflix cut ties with Spacey, shelving his film _Gore_ and removing him from the last season of _House of Cards_. Spacey's role as J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's film _All the Money in the World_ (2017) was reshot with Christopher Plummer in his place.[4][5] In 2018, _Billionaire Boys Club_ (which had been completed before the allegations surfaced) was released with Spacey's role unchanged and as of 2021, it remains his last film.[6]
> 
> ...



Spacey is defending himself in court for his crimes, and his being cut off from the entertainment industry was appropriate, if a little too late. The reckoning should have happened sooner, as people knew what he did.


----------



## Eltab (Mar 27, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> -snip-
> the person you're arguing with is this site's owner; and as such - like it or not - he to some extent *can* tell you what to do



... within the bounds of his website.

Be Polite is already a 'house rule'.


----------



## Eltab (Mar 27, 2021)

darjr said:


> Me! It's going to be me! .... now if only I knew what to put in the pot ....



A cardboard cutout of Alan Funt and audiotape of him saying
 "Smile !  You're on Candid Camera !"


----------



## darjr (Mar 27, 2021)

Oh! Adam Koebel is no longer a part of the Chaldea comic.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Mar 28, 2021)

DM Magic said:


> He emotionally abused a partner and destroyed a friendship over a job. He’s not a war criminal, nor is he owed an audience or a platform to reach said audience.



Going to expand on and add context to this

Emotionally abusing a partner:

Destroying friendships over a job:

A write-up of the whole thing (long): 



Spoiler







And to bring the whole thing 'round back to Luke Crane, who also has had his share of bad behaviour prior to this Perfect RPG mess:


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> What i was trying to get at, is that even though this is clearly reprehensible behaviour, i'm not sure it warrants saying "look this guy is participating in that project. Are you still cool to participate?"




Imagine, for a moment, that one of the other creators on the project is themselves a survivor of sexual assault - which is not unlikely if anyone on the project is a woman.  But, you, the person behind the project, probably don't know it, because folks don't usually talk about such with business associates.

Do you think folks who have themselves been assaulted shouldn't be given a choice to distance themselves from this dude?  This isn't a matter of "hearsay" - what he did was broadcast, and can still be found and reviewed.   

This would not make the project creator a judge, jury, or executioner - it allows the others working on the project to judge for themselves, and choose whom they associate with.


----------



## darjr (Mar 28, 2021)

This bit I didn’t know about.



> He also used his power as a company executive change his username and to delete user comments, features that have been denied to other creators. So creators who have transitioned are stuck creating under their deadnames, but exceptions can be made



From  A-Game - Luke Crane, Kickstarter VP of Community, abused his power over game designers - how should users respond?


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Mar 28, 2021)

darjr said:


> This bit I didn’t know about.
> 
> 
> From  A-Game - Luke Crane, Kickstarter VP of Community, abused his power over game designers - how should users respond?



Yeah, that's actually the bigger issue as far as I'm concerned; now that we know that Kickstarter's platform can support these tools but up until now Kickstarter refused to let creators use them, is that going to change?


----------



## R_Chance (Mar 28, 2021)

Unfortunately talent in a field is not always paired with good personal character. That's been demonstrated so often in wider fields than gaming that I don't find it surprising. Just sad.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 28, 2021)

"Games are like sausages, it's better not to see them being made."  Otto Von Bismark (citation needed).  I usually don't care who is working behind the scenes of what I consume for entertainment and sometimes that even includes the author.  I don't really care about Anne Rice or Stephen King's politics, their childhood, or their personal lives.  But then I don't want my lack of interest in such things to enable abusive behavior.  I certainly can't watch reruns of _I Spy_ or _The Cosby Show_ these days.  

I don't consider myself a particularly squeamish individual nor are my players.  But I wouldn't dream of dropping a sexual assault scene into any RPG I was running and it boggles my mind that someone would do so in a live stream.  And I've run games where my player had their characters do some pretty messed up stuff.  

I don't blame people for not wanting to work with Koebel.  And I don't blame them for not wanting to work with a guy who tried to hide Koebel's involvement in a project.  If I were a project manager I'd probably avoid having him on my team for fear that he would drive other talented people away. And Kickstarter needs to add some internal controls to ensure their employees can't abuse their positions when creating their own Kickstarter projects.


----------



## Emirikol Prime (Mar 28, 2021)

ibenny said:


> Is it ever going to end..? It's high time to give Koebel a break, it's not like he's a war criminal or something like that and should be pushed to the ground any time he wants to do something RPG-related. He made an error, not something that warrants for an everlasting exclusion.



Nope.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 28, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I suggest you just let people decide who they want to work with rather than lecturing them about their choices.



I mean...isn't this whole thread about judging people's choices?


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Mar 28, 2021)

DM Magic said:


> What a joke of an apology. I wonder if Crane and Koebel have the same ghostwriter...



I actually disagree. Koebel's apology did not really acknowledge the harm he caused; nor did he discuss what he would do to make reparations. Luke's did both.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> After this comment, i went online to read what happened. Particularly, i was curious about why the term abuser was used.
> /snip
> 
> But i'm not sure that automatically assuming the position of outrage and "burn them at the stake" attirude is the right approach either. People make mistakes. We all do. We need to be able to talk about it. Demonising people isn't the answer, I don't think.





			
				@MGibster said:
			
		

> I don't consider myself a particularly squeamish individual nor are my players.  But I wouldn't dream of dropping a sexual assault scene into any RPG I was running and it boggles my mind that someone would do so in a live stream.  And I've run games where my player had their characters do some pretty messed up stuff.




Frankly, that's the point in a nutshell.  How stupid do you have to be to create a rape scene scenario for your live stream?  I'm sorry, but, the level of stupidity there is just breath taking.  And then for people to say, "Oh, well, it's been 12 months, we should forgive him" is also breath takingly stupid as well.  No, people like this should be excised from the hobby.  I don't want anyone like this anywhere near my hobby.  I'm sorry if that's too judgemental, but, good grief.  And then for Luke Crane to try to hide the fact that Koebel is part of the project, precisely because of this only enables that sort of thing.  "Oh, yeah, he just made a mistake."  FFS, that's beyond a "mistake".  That's deliberate.  No one in their right mind would think that this is acceptable.  

This isn't demonizing anyone.  This is rightfully pointing out a toxic person, who, all on his own, CHOSE to display his toxicity being held accountable for his actions.

It's not like the standards we hold creators to are really that high.  "Don't make live stream videos of rape scenes in an RPG" is a pretty freaking low bar.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Imagine, for a moment, that one of the other creators on the project is themselves a survivor of sexual assault - which is not unlikely if anyone on the project is a woman.  But, you, the person behind the project, probably don't know it, because folks don't usually talk about such with business associates.
> 
> Do you think folks who have themselves been assaulted shouldn't be given a choice to distance themselves from this dude?  This isn't a matter of "hearsay" - what he did was broadcast, and can still be found and reviewed.
> 
> This would not make the project creator a judge, jury, or executioner - it allows the others working on the project to judge for themselves, and choose whom they associate with.




I was more arguing about the principle of what project creators should do in general, as a rule. 

Examples: What if the person wasn't aware of what had happened. Or if there was contradictory evidence. I still feel that project creators should not be expected to call people up and say, x was accused of y. For me the right approach would be to be transparent about who is participating in the project. If someone then doesn't want to collaborate with said collaborator or support work associated with a member of the team, they can opt out and/or voice their objections. For me it's an important distinction, because then the project creator doesn't have to play detective with what happened (although this example might be fairly clear cut, in other cases it may be a lot trickier to establish what happened).  And the project creator can then concentrate on the work. I.e. i leave the space (and the responsibility) to other people to make a decision for themselves.

In this instance, that transparency was lacking.
Not only that, but it sounds like steps were taken to actively confuse the issue of who is participating. And there were other issues too it seems (particularly, how the KS tools were used).

So yeah, i'm not going to defend what has happened in this instance. But i do think it's important as a community not to put that kind of burden on project creators: it's not their responsibility to decide whether someone did something reprehensible or not.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> it's not their responsibility to decide whether someone did something reprehensible or not.



It absolutely is.  

If you choose to work with someone, knowing that that someone has a reputation and has been shown, pretty clearly, to be problematic, then it absolutely is your responsibility as a project creator.  You're the boss.  The buck stops on your desk.  YOU (not you, @polyhedral man but the generic you) are responsible for your project.  And, it behooves any project creator to do due diligence and take a bit of a look at the background of the people who you are inviting to work on your project.  

"Oh, I didn't know" means that the project creator is incompetent.  Couldn't be bothered to do a 30 second Google search to check that the people on the project aren't going to be an issue.  That Luke Crane deliberately tried to hide the fact that he had brought in Koebel is even worse.  He KNEW it was a problem, otherwise he wouldn't have tried to hide it, but, went ahead and did it anyway.  Then he got caught.

Hey, ya rolls the dice ya takes the chances.  He chose to do this, fully knowing the issues at hand, got caught, and lost his job because of it.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> It absolutely is.
> 
> If you choose to work with someone, knowing that that someone has a reputation and has been shown, pretty clearly, to be problematic, then it absolutely is your responsibility as a project creator.  You're the boss.  The buck stops on your desk.  YOU (not you, @polyhedral man but the generic you) are responsible for your project.  And, it behooves any project creator to do due diligence and take a bit of a look at the background of the people who you are inviting to work on your project.
> 
> ...




I made a distinction earlier, and it's an important one. I'm not talking about the specific case. I'm talking about the responsibility of a project creator in general. Finding out whether anyone did or did not do something reprehensible, is not a 30 second google search. More importantly, it shouldn't be. And we shouldn't treat it as such.


Edit: also, if they did do something reprehensible, what's the extent of the measures a project creator should take? Who gets to decide that?


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> Edit: also, if they did do something reprehensible, what's the extent of the measures a project creator should take? Who gets to decide that?




It's a complex situation, I believe.

In one extreme the project creator is beholden to no one and decides what measures should be taken. But they are to an extent beholden to the wishes of any creators they have involved, and should probably listen to them, lest the smoke of burning bridges becomes overwhelming. Also the project in turn is beholden to the wishes of the backers to a certain extent. They should be happy with the project they are backing.

So basically the project creator is free to do what they want, but if they are planning on involving other people, then those people get a say as well.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I made a distinction earlier, and it's an important one. I'm not talking about the specific case. I'm talking about the responsibility of a project creator in general. Finding out whether anyone did or did not do something reprehensible, is not a 30 second google search. More importantly, it shouldn't be. And we shouldn't treat it as such.
> 
> 
> Edit: also, if they did do something reprehensible, what's the extent of the measures a project creator should take? Who gets to decide that?



Why not?  If someone did something that the community finds reprehensible, it should absolutely be a 30 second Google search to learn that.  And, as a project creator, you are responsible for the people you involve in your project.

What measures should a project creator take?  Well, vetting your contributors is just basic good business sense.  There is no excuse for not doing that.  And, frankly, if someone is toxic, and their inclusion will increase the chance of your project failing, then, well, don't include that person in your project.  Seems pretty straight forward and simple to me.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Why not?  If someone did something that the community finds reprehensible, it should absolutely be a 30 second Google search to learn that.



I started writing a reply, but then found this article. It makes a better job than i could do to make the case of why deferring your judgement to what "the community" seems to think at the moment, might not be such a good idea after all.









						Commentary: Twitter Has Become the Modern-Day Colosseum
					

Twitter mobs have turned Twitter into a blood sport reminiscent of Ancient Rome's Colosseum.




					fortune.com


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I started writing a reply, but then found this article. *It makes a better job than i could do* to make the case of why deferring your judgement to what "the community" seems to think at the moment, might not be such a good idea after all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Considering how poor of a job that articles does at what you say it does, then that's not saying much in your favor really.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> What measures should a project creator take?  Well, vetting your contributors is just basic good business sense.  There is no excuse for not doing that.  And, frankly, if someone is toxic, and their inclusion will increase the chance of your project failing, then, well, don't include that person in your project.  Seems pretty straight forward and simple to me.



Let's say i write a module, and want to publish it. I find a good illustrator. They have the skills, i like their work, and they have a good track record of delivering projects online. Is that sufficient vetting? If not, what should the additional level of vetting entail? Ask them for documents to prove they have not been convicted of anything? (I personally don't remember ever being asked that in an interview. Why would a creative project be any different?) Or should i google them? What if i don't find anything. What if i do, but have no idea if an allegation is true?
Should i keep a record of my google search results, In case the internet decides i'm a bad person for chosing to work with this individual? If it later transpires that they did something wrong?

To avoid all this, should i only work with people that i know for 20 years, and can vouch for? What if they don't have the skills. Should i not trust strangers then to do professional work?

...Do you see where it becomes difficult to define? Of course it's good to know the people you work with, and ideally be able to vouch for them. What i'm saying is, that's the ideal situatuon. We're discussing about project creator accountability, and what should the rule be. Not what the ideal situation is.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> ...Do you see where it becomes difficult to define? Of course it's good to know the people you work with, and ideally be able to vouch for them. What i'm saying is, that's the ideal situatuon. We're discussing about project creator accountability, and what should the rule be. Not what the ideal situation is.



There's no "rule". Social behavior doesn't have rules. Just common sense and human beings reacting to things.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Considering how poor of a job that articles does at what you say it does, then that's not saying much in your favor really.



Well, that is a matter of opinion. I find the fact that you chose to make it personal, about what it is saying in "my favor", interesting.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

Morrus said:


> There's no "rule". Social behavior doesn't have rules. Just common sense and human beings reacting to things.



Really this whole search for non-existent rules is just another version of the "where do we draw the line?" play from the "how do I avoid making any socially responsible changes to my behavior as possible?" playbook.



polyhedral man said:


> Well, that is a matter of opinion. I find the fact that you chose to make it personal, about what it is saying in "my favor", interesting.



In favor of _your_ argument that _you_ are choosing to make and repeatedly try to defend.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Morrus said:


> There's no "rule". Social behavior doesn't have rules. Just common sense and human beings reacting to things.



That was in fact my point. There isn't one rule that fits all in these situations, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.


----------



## imagineGod (Mar 28, 2021)

Basically, people may be confusing Teo things. One is abusing a position of power and the other is helping a friend. Everyone is free to help friends and pledge personal finance to a Kickstarter project. 

However, someone in a position of authority that abuses the tools of that position to help a friend above and beyond what is available to the public, is engaged in corrupt practices. Obviously, not all corruption is criminally liable, but it is still corruption that breeds distrust in public projects, community and business.


----------



## Eltab (Mar 28, 2021)

Eventually, somebody - call him Fred - with a history of pointing fingers at would-be team members and proclaiming "Jack did X (here are search results); he's toxic; I can't work with him" is going to be met by other members of the team notifying the project coordinator "Fred brings drama to his projects (here are search results) more than contributions; I don't want to work with that" and Fred will be the one ejected from the project.  
How does Fred explain that this result was not best for the project?


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> That was in fact my point. There isn't one rule that fits all in these situations, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.



How to ignore social problems in four easy steps: 

Step 1: Force discussion of a magical line, rule, or boundary for irresponsible social situations.
Step 2: Cast ambiguity, doubt, and skepticism about the ability to find said line.
Step 3: Take non-existence of a hard line, rule, or boundary as an argumentative victory.
Step 4: Since no line exists, so the rationality goes, let bad behavior or idiotic decisions continue as normal.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Really this whole search for non-existent rules is just another version of the "where do we draw the line?" play from the "how do I avoid making any socially responsible changes to my behavior as possible?" playbook.
> 
> 
> In favor of _your_ argument that _you_ are choosing to make and repeatedly try to defend.




I feel you're misconstruing what i'm saying in bad faith, and find you a bit rude to be frank.


----------



## Panjumanju (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> Let's say i write a module, and want to publish it. I find a good illustrator. They have the skills, i like their work, and they have a good track record of delivering projects online. Is that sufficient vetting? If not, what should the additional level of vetting entail? Ask them for documents to prove they have not been convicted of anything? (I personally don't remember ever being asked that in an interview. Why would a creative project be any different?) Or should i google them? What if i don't find anything. What if i do, but have no idea if an allegation is true?
> Should i keep a record of my google search results, In case the internet decides i'm a bad person for chosing to work with this individual? If it later transpires that they did something wrong?
> 
> To avoid all this, should i only work with people that i know for 20 years, and can vouch for? What if they don't have the skills. Should i not trust strangers then to do professional work?
> ...




This is a straw man. You're trying to make the situation sound unreasonable, or some kind of slipperly slope to unreasonable, and it is not.

Someone got caught being purposefully deceitful. They got in trouble for it, because this hobby is a community predicated on good faith. That's all.

//Panjumanju


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I feel you're misconstruing what i'm saying in bad faith, and find you a bit rude to be frank.



I apologize for lacking sufficient good faith for arguments seeking to defend abusers and/or their enablers in our hobby.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> If not, what should the additional level of vetting entail? Ask them for documents to prove they have not been convicted of anything? (I personally don't remember ever being asked that in an interview. Why would a creative project be any different?)



You've never been asked for them because that's not how it works. I guarantee, however, that in many fields, _your_ _employers_ will absolutely have done checks to see if they can determine whether you have been convicted of stuff. Obviously they don't ask you for "documents" - though they might ask you to disclose if you have been convicted to save them time and surprise - but rather they use background checks of various kinds which vary from country to country.

For my job I had my background looked into, had to answer questions about my educational background, about stuff I'd worked on for previous employers (primarily to avoid conflicts), and I know there was other stuff too. Working there I also take part in a program where I help vulnerable people (elderly in this case), and that required a full in-depth criminal record check. So it depends what you're doing. But the idea that you could be asked for documents proving a negative is somewhat nonsensical, at least in countries I'm familiar with.

I think it's fair to say that at the very least you should Google people as well as doing an in-person or on-video interview (and ideally if it's video several different people should see it - some people pick up stuff others don't). If there's controversy over something, you're going to have to act like an adult and make the best decision you can. Typically that entails caution.

The reality is that it's rare that there aren't "warning signs" and the like, and rare that it's a single incident that's the problem. You might look at the case of Jeremy Soule, which I mentioned in a previous thread. There were no open allegations against him AFAIK until 2019, but it's notable that use of his work had started tapering off not long after Skyrim in 2011, and had entirely stopped by 2014/15. Prior to that, for well over a decade, he'd been a golden boy of AAA game music (and with good reason). I don't believe he suddenly stopped getting work for no reason. It seems much more likely people had decided that he was increasingly difficult to work with (given his failure to follow through on his own kickstarter and the problems his music-sales business had, this seems particularly likely). Yet as late as 2018 a smaller AA/indie company had him doing music for them - presumably because they were out of the loop on all this.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 28, 2021)

EDITED TO REMOVE COMMENT


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> In favor of _your_ argument that _you_ are choosing to make and repeatedly try to defend.






polyhedral man said:


> I feel you're misconstruing what i'm saying in bad faith, and find you a bit rude to be frank.




*Mod Note:*

Don't make it personal, folks, or nobody, on either side of it, will be happy with the results.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> Let's say i write a module, and want to publish it. I find a good illustrator. They have the skills, i like their work, and they have a good track record of delivering projects online. Is that sufficient vetting? If not, what should the additional level of vetting entail? Ask them for documents to prove they have not been convicted of anything? (I personally don't remember ever being asked that in an interview. Why would a creative project be any different?) Or should i google them? What if i don't find anything. What if i do, but have no idea if an allegation is true?
> Should i keep a record of my google search results, In case the internet decides i'm a bad person for chosing to work with this individual? If it later transpires that they did something wrong?
> 
> To avoid all this, should i only work with people that i know for 20 years, and can vouch for? What if they don't have the skills. Should i not trust strangers then to do professional work?
> ...



It's not difficult to define at all.

If the project creator/project manager vetts this person and discovers that they are an accused sexual predator or someone with a history of pretty open racism or a history of sexual harassment at public events like say gaming conventions and THEY make the choice to still take them on as part of the project then that's the responsibility that the PC/PM takes on.

It's really that simple. 

Any blowback? That's on the PC/PM.
Any financial hits, boycotts of your product? That's on the PC/PM.
The reputations of the other people on the project get trashed because it was more important for the PC/PM to see that this individual be on the project for, you know, REASONS? That's on the PC/PM.

90% of project management is comms. NINTEY PERCENT. Constant and direct. Being honest with your stakeholders as well as your team members. There's also an ENTIRE portion of Project Management dedicated to ASSESSING and MANAGING RISK.

If a possible participant potentially scuttling a project or hurting the reputation of the other project team members ISNT part of your risk assessment and mitigation strategy? You have NO BUSINESS managing projects of ANY KIND.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Mar 28, 2021)

Eltab said:


> Eventually, somebody - call him Fred - with a history of pointing fingers at would-be team members and proclaiming "Jack did X (here are search results); he's toxic; I can't work with him" is going to be met by other members of the team notifying the project coordinator "Fred brings drama to his projects (here are search results) more than contributions; I don't want to work with that" and Fred will be the one ejected from the project.
> How does Fred explain that this result was not best for the project?




I mean, it'll probably not look good for the project if Fred is, indeed, correct in his assessment that Jack is toxic and they ended up dropping him instead. But I'm confused as to what this hypothetical is supposed to really prove, given that either way Jack the toxic dude gets hired.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I was more arguing about the principle of what project creators should do in general, as a rule.




As someone who has to moderate social behavior - "rules" need to be a bit on the broad side, because strict rules leave loopholes.

If he had treated his team members like they mattered, and been open about who he was asking to work on the project, he would have avoided this whole tragedy.  So, that seems like a good guideline.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> Let's say i write a module, and want to publish it. I find a good illustrator. They have the skills, i like their work, and they have a good track record of delivering projects online. Is that sufficient vetting? If not, what should the additional level of vetting entail? Ask them for documents to prove they have not been convicted of anything? (I personally don't remember ever being asked that in an interview. Why would a creative project be any different?) Or should i google them? What if i don't find anything. What if i do, but have no idea if an allegation is true?
> Should i keep a record of my google search results, In case the internet decides i'm a bad person for chosing to work with this individual? If it later transpires that they did something wrong?
> 
> To avoid all this, should i only work with people that i know for 20 years, and can vouch for? What if they don't have the skills. Should i not trust strangers then to do professional work?
> ...



Even if you DON'T find anything on an initial/casual search and something comes out LATER (which is not the case here) being ready for damage control is also important.

Is it fair to the person who has the accusations leveled against them? Maybe not. But it's not my responsibility to assess their innocence or guilt. (Personally, I stand on the side of the accusers especially when it comes to sexual assault and harassment but maybe that's just me...) .

My responsibility as PC/PM is to the PROJECT and what is good for the project and to see it reach completion in a way that meets its goals. What's fair to one person doesn't even begin to weigh in here. If it's something that is going to put the project in danger then it has to be dealt with.


----------



## Mort (Mar 28, 2021)

I think it's important to focus on two things:

1) Koebel is one of the most toxic people in gaming right now. Crane could not, not have known this. Failure to address this with the other collaborators is not excusable ;

2) Crane used tools available to his position, expressly NOT available to other content creators, to obfuscate Koebel's involvement. THAT more than number 1, is what likely got him in trouble at Kickstarter itself.

This isn't really a case of "we need firm rules and lines going forward..." There were rules and lines,  Crane broke /crossed them.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Mort said:


> I think it's important to focus on two things:
> 
> 1) Koebel is one of the most toxic people in gaming right now. Crane could not, not have known this. Failure to address this with the other collaborators is not excusable ;
> 
> ...




If anyone goes back and reads what i said, they will see that i explicitly stated that i'm not defending this behaviour, and that there were a lot of factors at play.

I do however see this lynch mob mentality in the rpg community, and i think it's something very negative that needs to be addressed. I have seen it with Mearls, who was demonised and equated with some sort of abuser because some people somewhere believe him to have done something (with no evidence). This sort of mob behaviour is endemic in the internet and social media it seems. To a certain extent, this behaviour was exhibited in this thread too. One moment you're having a conversation, and all of a sudden people start making personal accusations, and casting you as some sort of bad guy... In my opinion, it's good to reflect on our own behaviour too, not just start moral crusades over the internet.

This specific case may have been fairly clear cut. Others (in the past, or in the future) may not be. This is what i said from the start, and if people want to misconstrue that, that's their prerogative, as long as they don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 28, 2021)

ShinHakkaider said:


> It's not difficult to define at all.
> 
> If the project creator/project manager vetts this person and discovers that they are an accused sexual predator or someone with a history of pretty open racism or a history of sexual harassment at public events like say gaming conventions and THEY make the choice to still take them on as part of the project then that's the responsibility that the PC/PM takes on.
> 
> ...



I guess we have different experiences on the role of the project manager. I’m a project manager at my job, and my role is all around delivery of the product the clients want. Risk assessment is around that context, not whether someone on the team might have said something offensive somewhere else. Honestly, I don’t have the time to do that research, and if I did, I’d be headed to HR with much haste. My day is already overfilled with just trying to coordinate requirements changes, deployment schedules, and managing defects/testing artifacts between the dozens of people I have to meet with every day.

That isn’t to say I don’t see your point. How many times have we seen a company do extremely costly recalls or refinements when it’s discovered someone in that company is a giant racist?  Fairly often.

Outside of my professional work, I also hire a ton of freelancers for my hobby work (RPGs). I can only do so much vetting. I don’t have access to their personal social media sites, and I don’t have any idea what other groups they belong to. I’m not about to hang out at Parler just on the rare occasion I might get lucky and they are using their own name on that site and I happen to run across it. My sanity couldn’t take it.

That being said, I am aware that if an artist or writer I’ve hired turns out to have done something pretty awful, I’m prepared to remove that work when I find out.

What is the answer, specifically though, around association and guilt?  For example, on this site ( and every site because it’s the nature of public forums), there are members who have espoused some really awful racist, sexist, and bigoted things on other sites and social media outlets. It’s not a real secret. So what culpability does Morrus have by continuing to have them as members and contributors to his site?  If we are holding companies and PMs accountable for things said by people outside of their projects/work, how far does that extend to social media platforms like this site?  Should Morrus ban anyone who has said or done awful stuff outside of this site in order to be held to the same standard as PMs and other groups?  Honest question, seriously. Because I can’t see what the answer should be.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> Let's say i write a module, and want to publish it. I find a good illustrator. They have the skills, i like their work, and they have a good track record of delivering projects online. Is that sufficient vetting?



I’ll take a stab at answering your questions. 


> I find a good illustrator. They have the skills, i like their work, and they have a good track record of delivering projects online. Is that sufficient vetting?



Yes. 


> If not, what should the additional level of vetting entail?



You might want to contact a few industry friends or just make a quick Google search on their name for further information.


> Ask them for documents to prove they have not been convicted of anything?



No. 


> Why would a creative project be any different?



If it is a Kickstarter, like the situation that is the basis of this thread, then what you are selling is trust. You want people to trust you to hand over their money before they've seen anything produced. So a higher level of due diligence might be warranted if you want to sell that trust to people.


> Or should i google them?



Yeah, that'll probably be enough. If you did a Google search on Adam Koebel, you would quickly find information on why you should be aware of his past history before hiring him.


> What if i don't find anything.



Then the person is probably ok.


> What if i do, but have no idea if an allegation is true?



You make an assessment on whether the benefit for the project involving that person is greater than the risks involved. Then you make your choice and prepare to explain that choice.


> Should i keep a record of my google search results, In case the internet decides i'm a bad person for chosing to work with this individual?



No.


> If it later transpires that they did something wrong?



If you did due diligence and can explain that you did, you're scot free.


> To avoid all this, should i only work with people that i know for 20 years, and can vouch for?



 No.


> What if they don't have the skills.



Then you shouldn't hire them to do that job.


> Should i not trust strangers then to do professional work?



Sure you should.


> ...Do you see where it becomes difficult to define?



Not really.

Regards

/Maggan


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Maggan said:


> I’ll take a stab at answering your questions.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



I would have given the same answers as yours on most, if not all, points. And the last one too. But if you do all that, it doesn't mean you get to escape the outrage mob.

I have an additional question for you, and everyone else who is genuinely interested in that question, regardless of whether they felt they agreed or disagreed with what i said.

Do a search on 3 joined terms on Google. Jonathan Tweet. 13th Age. And Pelgrane Press.

I'm quite fond of Pelgrane and most of their product lines. And i like a lot of Tweet's work.

My question is. If it's so clear cut, and it's just me making mountains out of molehills. Then what the hell went wrong with Pelgrane and Tweet?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 28, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> What is the answer, specifically though, around association and guilt?  For example, on this site ( and every site because it’s the nature of public forums), there are members who have espoused some really awful racist, sexist, and bigoted things on other sites and social media outlets. It’s not a real secret. So what culpability does Morrus have by continuing to have them as members and contributors to his site?  If we are holding companies and PMs accountable for things said by people outside of their projects/work, how far does that extend to social media platforms like this site?  Should Morrus ban anyone who has said or done awful stuff outside of this site in order to be held to the same standard as PMs and other groups?  Honest question, seriously. Because I can’t see what the answer should be.



In the case of ENWORLD, Morrus and company don't ban these people and that's their prerogative. But that doesn't come without consequence either. I've been a member here for almost 20 years. But I havent posted regularly here over the past 9 or 10 years because I know that this is not a "safe" place for black gamers in particular because of some of views of the posters here. I'm not alone in that view point as I've spoke to other gamers of color (specifically black gamers) outside of the boards here who feel the exact way. 

Now do I think that Morrus is a bad guy or Umbran or any of the mods? NOPE. Do I think that EnWorld as a whole is a bad place? NO not as bad as some. Is it a place that I spend a lot of my time talking to the community about games within a particular context? No. Have I made a personal decision to not contribute financially to the site or support any projects by ENworld? Yes. 

Thats MY answer to dealing with it.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> My question is. If it's so clear cut, and it's just me making mountains out of molehills. Then what the hell went wrong with Pelgrane and Tweet?



I don't know. I tried reading up on the controversy but didn't really find the Pelgrane side of the debate.  I guess sometimes things happen.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 28, 2021)

Maggan said:


> It's a complex situation, I believe.
> 
> In one extreme the project creator is beholden to no one and decides what measures should be taken. But they are to an extent beholden to the wishes of any creators they have involved, and should probably listen to them, lest the smoke of burning bridges becomes overwhelming. Also the project in turn is beholden to the wishes of the backers to a certain extent. They should be happy with the project they are backing.
> 
> So basically the project creator is free to do what they want, but if they are planning on involving other people, then those people get a say as well.




"Cancel culture" is just Capitalism working correctly, plain and simple.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> I would have given the same answers as yours on most, if not all, points. And the last one too. But if you do all that, it doesn't mean you get to escape the outrage mob.



I'm not sure if dismissing people who are calling for others to be held accountable for their actions as simply being "the outrage mob" really helps give an impression of a "good faith" approach. This runs the risk, IMHO, of pre-deciding whose words you trust first and foremost. If one has already decided that mass calls for accountability on social media are to be treated as an "outrage mob," then that casts aspersions on them at the outset.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if dismissing people who are calling for others to be held accountable for their actions as simply being "the outrage mob" really helps give an impression of a "good faith" approach. This runs the risk, IMHO, of pre-deciding whose words you trust first and foremost. If one has already decided that mass calls for accountability on social media are to be treated as an "outrage mob," then that casts aspersions on them at the outset.




If you decide to give a genuine apology, we can then talk about risks.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 28, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> I guess we have different experiences on the role of the project manager. I’m a project manager at my job, and my role is all around delivery of the product the clients want. Risk assessment is around that context, not whether someone on the team might have said something offensive somewhere else. Honestly, I don’t have the time to do that research, and if I did, I’d be headed to HR with much haste. My day is already overfilled with just trying to coordinate requirements changes, deployment schedules, and managing defects/testing artifacts between the dozens of people I have to meet with every day.




I hear you and you're right about this part. Most times theres too many other tasks directly related to the work to be done. However I'm going to say that managing an IT project is going to be different than managing a publishing project. And yes the end goal is delivering the project to the client. But I'd also imagine, depending upon the size of the project and whether or not it's public facing or not and the community it would be impacting you'd want to at least do or have some vetting done on some of the primaries. I'm thinking of a very specific instance in my case where knowing and understanding the motives of one of the primary stakeholders would have made a difference in whether or not to continue with the project at all. All it would have taken was just asking around about this particular person and we could have avoided a major headache. But we didn't because we assumed that everyone at least had close to the same goals and wanted the same thing. Live and learn I guess. 

In this case specifically it was a VERY public facing project and the TTRPG community is pretty insular. And there was no way that Crane DIDNT know about Koebel.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> If you decide to give a genuine apology, we can then talk about risks.



I'm not following you.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Maggan said:


> I don't know. I tried reading up on the controversy but didn't really find the Pelgrane side of the debate.  I guess sometimes things happen.




You see, it's easy to discuss these things and say "sometimes things happen" when it affects other people, but cancel culture does have an impact on people, their reputations and their livelihoods. This is why i feel that oversimplifications like "it's just a matter of a quick google and then you can separate who did what, who's bad and needs punishment" are extremely dangerous. And before anyone accuses me again of defending the case in the OP, i am NOT doing that. All i'm saying is that not all cases are as straightforward. And we need to be aware of that fact.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 28, 2021)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I hear you and you're right about this part. Most times theres too many other tasks directly related to the work to be done. However I'm going to say that managing an IT project is going to be different than managing a publishing project. And yes the end goal is delivering the project to the client. But I'd also imagine, depending upon the size of the project and whether or not it's public facing or not and the community it would be impacting you'd want to at least do or have some vetting done on some of the primaries. I'm thinking of a very specific instance in my case where knowing and understanding the motives of one of the primary stakeholders would have made a difference in whether or not to continue with the project at all. All it would have taken was just asking around about this particular person and we could have avoided a major headache. But we didn't because we assumed that everyone at least had close to the same goals and wanted the same thing. Live and learn I guess.
> 
> In this case specifically it was a VERY public facing project and the TTRPG community is pretty insular. And there was no way that Crane DIDNT know about Koebel.



I just want to say I don’t disagree with you or the points you’re talking about, just that I’m offering my own perspective. I don’t want it to come off as looking like I’m not valuing your perspective. Because I do.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> You see, it's easy to discuss these things and say "sometimes things happen" when it affects other people, but cancel culture does have an impact on people, their reputations and their livelihoods. This is why i feel that oversimplifications like "it's just a matter of a quick google and then you can separate who did what, who's bad and needs punishment" are extremely dangerous. And before anyone accuses me again of defending the case in the OP, i am NOT doing that. All i'm saying is that not all cases are as straightforward. And we need to be aware of that fact.



Jonathan Tweet being dropped by a publisher does not mean he's been cancelled. People are dropped all the time for various reasons.

That tweet still don't explain Pelgrane's stance on things, so the information for me to answer your question is not available to me.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> All i'm saying is that not all cases are as straightforward. And we need to be aware of that fact.



We should also be aware of the fact that such cases are edge cases. There is no tornado of cancel culture ripping through the rpg industry.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 28, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> I just want to say I don’t disagree with you or the points you’re talking about, just that I’m offering my own perspective. I don’t want it to come off as looking like I’m not valuing your perspective. Because I do.



Oh no man, NO WORRIES!  I got that from what you wrote. It's hard to read tone sometimes but yours was pretty clear.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 28, 2021)

So this thread isn't really about the original topic, and is mainly about one person's dislike of what he calls 'cancel culture', which isn't really a discussion I'm interested in hosting. I'll check back shortly and if it's still about that, I'll be closing it.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> You see, it's easy to discuss these things and say "sometimes things happen" when it affects other people, but cancel culture does have an impact on people, their reputations and their livelihoods. This is why i feel that oversimplifications like "it's just a matter of a quick google and then you can separate who did what, who's bad and needs punishment" are extremely dangerous. And before anyone accuses me again of defending the case in the OP, i am NOT doing that. All i'm saying is that not all cases are as straightforward. And we need to be aware of that fact.




This is, again, simple capitalism. If an individual has taken public actions that can be detrimental to business, as Tweet did, businesses will be prone to cut ties to protect the bottom line.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> You see, it's easy to discuss these things and say "sometimes things happen" when it affects other people, but *cancel culture does have an impact on people, their reputations and their livelihoods. *This is why i feel that oversimplifications like "it's just a matter of a quick google and then you can separate who did what, who's bad and needs punishment" are extremely dangerous. And before anyone accuses me again of defending the case in the OP, i am NOT doing that. All i'm saying is that not all cases are as straightforward. And we need to be aware of that fact.



"Cancel culture" is another way of attacking the principle that one's personal actions should have consequences. (In this case, the controversy involved Jonathan Tweet openly "flirting" with scientific racism in a now deleted tweet.) But, no, Jonathan Tweet has not been cancelled. He's still writing and publishing (e.g., Everway, Over the Edge, etc.). He still has a platform on Twitter and even on ENWorld since that time.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Maggan said:


> Jonathan Tweet being dropped by a publisher does not mean he's been cancelled. People are dropped all the time for various reasons.
> 
> That tweet still don't explain Pelgrane's stance on things, so the information for me to answer your question is not available to me.



It was more a rhetorical question, i didn't intent to put you on the spot. As someone once said, questions are free, answers are a different matter. I appreciate that you don't have enough info to make a conclusion. In my mind, this is an example of someone being impacted by an online campaign, without any merit. I could be wrong, and it could be completely unrelated.

But yeah, as a conclusion, i don't think the nuances of real life can be captured in one google search. If that was the case, we wouldn't need court rooms and a legal system.


----------



## Waller (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> But yeah, as a conclusion, i don't think the nuances of real life can be captured in one google search. If that was the case, we wouldn't need court rooms and a legal system.



Those are for crimes, not conversations. They have nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 28, 2021)

polyhedral man said:


> It was more a rhetorical question, i didn't intent to put you on the spot. As someone once said, questions are free, answers are a different matter. I appreciate that you don't have enough info to make a conclusion. In my mind, this is an example of someone being impacted by an online campaign, without any merit. I could be wrong, and it could be completely unrelated.
> 
> But yeah, as a conclusion, i don't think the nuances of real life can be captured in one google search. If that was the case, we wouldn't need court rooms and a legal system.




The courtroom of public opinion is what companies need to be concerned with, because they are not charities giving out money to creators because they are in need. They need to sell to the public.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Corrosive said:


> Those are for crimes, not conversations. They have nothing to do with this topic.



If you say so mate.


----------



## polyhedral man (Mar 28, 2021)

Morrus said:


> So this thread isn't really about the original topic, and is mainly about one person's dislike of what he calls 'cancel culture', which isn't really a discussion I'm interested in hosting. I'll check back shortly and if it's still about that, I'll be closing it.




No comment to that.


----------



## Fallen star (Mar 28, 2021)

I didn't like Koebel before the incident in question.   However, Crane didn't deserve the level of backlash he got. It was likely he  simply wasn't aware.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 28, 2021)

Well, that settles it. Thread closed!


----------

